I JUST CAN'T STOP BLOGGING! (or procrastinating)

Am I supposed to be packing? Well, yes. Am I? No. Am I going somewhere tonight that takes me away from packing? Yes. Will I be packing tonight? Yes (veryverylate tonight). So, I'm here instead to tell you about what I wrote about for my paper.

MARGARET CAVENDISH, DUCHESS OF NEWCASTLE

heard of her? probably not.

Why? She's a 17th century kind of feminist who challenged societal norms mostly in the battle of the sexes.

She wrote a book called A Description of a New World, called, The Blazing World. Or something like that. Summary of the book: woman is transported to magical land via a scurvy plot to hurt her honor. This world is aptly named The Blazing World in a symbol of brightness, happiness, and flaming passion. She becomes the Empress, once she marries the emperor, and proceeds to examine all scientific societies there (while laughingly mocking such scientists as Newton, Hooke, etc.) and lets women in on church. Feminist? Kind of. Tory feminist? kind of. Antifeminist? Kind of. She's really complicated. Actually, I liked the woman more than the book. She was the first to enter the royal society in high style and attracted attention wherever she went. She was (as I gathered) hopelessly in love with her husband. A letter that she wrote him shows how grateful she is for him and his tolerance with her writing plays and books and essays on government and dabbling in scientific theory and yields to him that she would not be such a woman if not for him. It's absolutely adorable, but really not feminist. In my essay, I looked at how the 3 genres of the work (romance, scientific, feminist utopia) reflected her personality, views, and life in general. There is an absolutely weird court scene in the book - if you don't know the background. If you do, it's adorable. She wrote this scene in because it's her fantasy about what would have happened. In real life, she was given the opportunity to defend her husband's possessions and property in court but chickened out. In the book, she gives a passionate and eloquent speech about her husband's strength of character and a defense of his actions (mind you, they were royalists in just post-civil war era, this would have been a legitimate reason to defend someone.) If you don't know what it's talking about, it seems weird, but once you do, it seems so sweet...

Anyhow, I love Margaret Cavendish, the little duchess that no one cares about anymore. You can tell, because it's really hard to get research on her, especially in a smallish university in America. Anyhow, do you remember the original purpose of this blog? I barely do. It was to read all of the books on that list...and look at me, by Christmas reading list is full of amazing books that aren't on the list. Shame on me. I am, however, very excited to start reading. Here they are:

Les Miserables (SO EXCITED I"VE ALREADY READ 2 CHAPTERS!!!!

A Prayer for Owen Meany (strongly recommended by a friend and a venture into American authors (gasp))

Searching for God Knows What (I'm halfway through and can't seem to finish it..)

Redigging the Wells (a wonderful book by my grandfather that I haven't read yet, but I have a copy)

and possibly, though doubtful:

On Writing (by stephen king, also strongly recommended by several people)

Do you see the problem? or rather, the oddity? 3/5 of this list is nonfiction. WEIRD. But then again Les Mis counts for bout 10, so it's really 3 /11.

Can we call this studying for finals?

So, there's coffee brewing in the pot and my Norton split open face down on my desk pleading with me to read Oroonoko finally. Funnily, having mentioned that I hadn't got around to reading this work by Aphra Behn yet, several students berated my failure because it is so good. Actually, I'm about 10 pages into it and I have to agree. My Lit final is tomorrow, so I figured I should probably get onto that. It's the only work I haven't read because the day I tried to read it was opening night for Wales. Oops. The author is Aphra Behn and yes, she is feministic. I learned in class that overly-intellectual feminist women like her were called Bluestockings and I almost laughed out loud. That was the same day I decided to wear my bright blue knee high socks. hahaha.

Speaking of, I would like to draw attention to the mysteries of life. I have encountered two in my short life span. The first was in 10th grade as some who read this blog might recall. My 7am teacher (oh dear, Coach Starks) handed back a Bible test which on the 3rd or 4th page prominently featured a big red heart drawn and colored with a red pen. I was confounded and I asked him about it. He said he didn't draw it but refused to give the name of the perpetrator. I was just curious.... Near my graduation, I asked him again and he denied all knowledge of the matter and evaded. I suppose I'll never know. My second encounter occurred this Sunday. The same day that I had worn my blue stockings, the day before opening night, I lost one of my bluestockings in the dressing room backstage. Despite a lengthy search, the second sock remained elusive. I gave up hope. On Sunday my suite had a christmas party just the 5 of us, and I opened my stocking. Among candy and other assorted treats, was one of my bluestockings. There are two parts to this mystery. The first is, I'm still not sure whether it is the one that I lost or the one that I already had. The second is, how did it end up in my stocking!!!!!? I can't even explain how it might have gotten from my clean laundry to hanging up on the wall, let along from the Ulrey to my wall!!! Aiaiai!

As I said, I do have an exam in Lit tomorrow. It will cover the general poems, Satires, and Holy sonnets of John Donne (swoon), Volpone by Johnson, PARADISE LOST by Milton, Mac Flecknoe, by John Dryden, A Pilgrim's Progress by Bunyan, Oroonoko, A Modest Proposal by Swift, Elegy by Gray, The Rape of the Lock by Pope, and The Vanity of Human Wishes and preface to his dictionary by Ben Johnson. It promises to be exciting. I've also completed a research paper in this class since I last posted, but it will have to retain a post to itself. And I'll probably write it tomorrow while avoiding studying like the plague. Oroonoko is calling!

SHAKESPEAREEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

I. Love. Shakepeare. Pure and Simple. In class, we read selections from the sonnet and Twelfth Night. LOVE. There is also King Lear in our anthology....which is giving me ideas for a reread...

If you aren't familiar with the basic plot of Twelfth Night (comedy, by the way), it's veryvery simple.

FIRST. Viola and Sebastian (twins) shipwreck off the coast of Illyria and get separated and fervently hope the other isn't dead. Sebastian wanders around for 3 months while Viola (sensible, right?) decides to lay low and turn into a man for a while so she can get a job as a page while she waits for Sebastian to show up. Duke Orsino (her master fellow) is in love with Olivia (fair maid) who's sworn of guys while Sir Toby Belch (her uncle) tries to clear things up by marrying her off to Sir Andrew (fair courter). While she's rejecting Andy, they make fun of Malvolio (the Puritan Steward) with the help of Maria (wily chamber maid) 'cause he's in love with Olivia. Feste (fair clown figure) weaves in, out, and everywhere. Here's the catch: Viola (AKA Cesario) has to wooooo Olivia for Orsino, meanwhile falling in love with Orsino her/himself. While wooing, Olivia flashes eyes at Viola/Cesario and decides that maybe celibacy isn't so awesome. Several yellow, cross-gartered stockings later, Sebastian shows up and starts getting punched. And then wooed. Or was that Viola/Cesario????

Got it?

Good.

While you are figuring that out, read the sonnet I memorized for my midterm:

When in the chronicle of wasted time

I see descriptions of the fairest wights,

And beauty making beautiful old rhyme

In praise of ladies dead and lovely knights,

Then in the blazon of sweet beauty's best

Of hand, of foot, of lip, of eye, of brow,

I see their antique pen would have expressed

Even such a beauty as you master now.

So all their praises are but prophecies

Of this our time, all you prefiguring;

And, for they looked but with divining eyes

Had not worth enough your praise to sing,

For we, which now behold these present days,

Have eyes to wonder, but lack tongues to praise.

I love Shakespeare. (Oh, and btw, I have fresh defenses against the claim that Shakespeare was gay. So don't even start with me.)

Before sinking into Tolkein oblivion...

I have an announcement to make. WATCHMEN IS LITERATURE. Pass out if you dare. I didn't enjoy Watchmen much while reading, but the end product was surprisingly good and worthy of its esteemed title. Honestly, I kind of want to watch the movie. Alright, let's look at this modern novel an old-fashioned way.

GENRE: Technically, there were two, but the first could be written off as style. First and foremost, it is a graphic-novel, also known as a really long comic book. Secondly - and this one, I am ashamed to say - didn't click in my mind until the last few pages, it is a dystopia. Like many of this genre, portrays an imperfect world (our own) and compares it to what does happen in the last few pages - a real dystopia. Or utopia. Or whatever. Really, the recurring motif of the happy smiley face seen on all the movie posters should have tipped me off. It represents a perfect "utopia" in case you were wondering. All of you should know I have a weak spot for dystopias, and this book is just sitting on the periphery waiting to be let in. In case you don't know, I read more modern novels like this to give my reading a new scope and outlook and so I'm not fully ignorant of some new genre or something.

LITERARY TECHNIQUES: If you are like me, you look at a graphic novel and think techniques? No...there can't be any. But there are!!! I knew that there were certain levels of parallels in the plot beforehand, but my friend who forced me to read the book pointed out that one of the chapters titled "Fearful Symmetry" was very subtly symmetrical from front to back. On every page, either the coloring or the actions or the pictures were symmetrical.

The book was formed with a graphic section followed by a short "primary source" - a fictional newspaper article or some such writing. It broke up the surprisingly long book into shorter segments, which was pretty nice, I'm not gonna lie. All in all, I say not bad, but it's not a book I'll be looking to for rereads.

Such a guy book.

2 out of 3.

To explain the title, we have three parts to our Brit Lit Norton Anthology. And I can't believe it, but we've already moved on to the second part: The sixteenth century/Early seventeenth century. I think it was the amazing title that first attracted me, truly. I'm already enjoying the two assignments we've read from this book. First, I discovered my devotion to Sir, St. Thomas More. Yes, it's true that he ascended to sainthood in the early 1900s. Poor soul, he was martyred by King Henry the VIII because he was Catholic. Oops. Oh, well. He left us Utopia. And what a wonderful book it is. If ever you have a sudden need for inspiration or even just a simple social debate, read this treatise. I hate politics economics and debating about such things, but I love talking about society. In fact, our professor handed a basic list of Utopian/Dystopian literature and, as you can probably tell from this blog, some of my favorite books were on it.

We've also read recently some of the poetry of Sir Thomas Wyatt the Elder. I must say, the more I read, the more I liked him. Unfortunately, he seems to get rejected a lot. I shall include one of his poems at the end of the post. :)

I also had to read Peace Like a River by Leif Enger for Communications. Although I will hopefully include a longer summary and outline later (I have to give a speech on it anyhow), if you believe in belief, this is the book for you. It is all about faith and miracles and sacrifice and surviving on the edge with really nothing before you. It's a really good book. More on that later. To conclude....

Madam, withouten many words

Madam, withouten many words,

Once, I am sure, ye will or no.

And if ye will, then leave your bordes (jests)

And use your wit and show it so.

And with a beck ye shall me call.

And if of one that burneth alway

Ye have any pity at all,

Answer him fair with yea or nay.

If it be yea, I shall be fain.

If it be nay, friends as before.

Ye shall another man obtain,

And I mine own and yours no more.

Haven't Been Devout, Have I?

I know I haven't been devout. I apologize. Really. :0

But I would just like to say several things about college.

First, relating to a previously posted book: A Brave New World is the favorite book of our communications and critical thinking class. In this class, we basically discuss ideas and philosophies, mostly social. So far, we have discussed libertarianism, utilitarianism, Kant, and a couple other awesome ideas about Justice. But in every class we end up talking about an" ideal" society, like the one in New World. Actually, one of the chapters mentioned "The Ones Who Walked Away From Omelas"! I was very excited. Anyhow, as a member in our class once said, it seems like everything we talk about reminds us of New World! Which is definitive proof that A Brave New World is the dystopia to trump all other dystopias. Take that, 1984!!!

Also, I am currently involved (at least as much as I can be with play practice and all) with a little group called Souvenirs. Aka, we sit around drinking tea and reading each other poetry. When someone asks "Is that all you do?" I respond with, "Well, we poetry duel!" Which is totally true. We are the jedis of poetry. Actually, we've covered Shakespeare, Donne, Tennyson, Cummings*, Eliot, and next week is Frost! Sadly, I missed Cummings and Eliot. But I still memorized a Cummings poem just for fun. The Shakespeare week was possibly one of my favorites! We almost disbanded without reading Sonnet 116, but I solved that problem. One of the things that made me very happy, was that in my first 5 minutes, two guys started dueling out "To be or not to be," which I memorized like 2 years ago, and since one of them dropped out, I was able to finish it out in his place! It is a tribute to thinking fast. Souvenirs is so amazing, we are hosting an all day reading of Paradise Lost sometime this "winter" according to Claxton. Amazing group. And also, there are cute boys. Just sayin. :D

Thirdly, I am in Brit Lit, as you know which has turned out just to my expectations, though a little different of course than I imagined. Our teacher is Michael Claxton and he is so funny! If you ever catch the Bison from this month, read his article in the back about Twilight. We move so fast in that class. So far, we've covered general Medieval writings and history, Caedmon, Beowulf, Sir Gawain (my hero!) and the General Prolouge to the Canterbury tales as well as the Prolouge and tales of the Pardoner and the Wife of Bath - and I accidentally read half of the Miller's tale by mistake. I LOVE Sir Gawain and the Wife of Bath. Oh, and, did I mention? We are reading all of the Canterbury Tales in MIDDLE ENGLISH. Ok, it's not completely untranslated middle English, but it gives you what Claxton refers to as 'Footnote Whiplash.' I'm getting pretty good at it. Yep, it's exciting.

Well, that's about it, except for reading oodles for every other class. Currently, I'm also trying to read the Silmarillion, Watchman, and get my fill of Tennyson. Someone should tell me to slow down. Au Revoir!

OPENING K-NIGHT!

I am. Excited. Why? Because the theatre around the corner from my house ( www.theatrememphis.org ) is putting on a production of Much Ado About Nothing!!!! Aka, MAAN. This was my first high school play, actually, and it has remained my favorite Shakespearean Comedy. Ever. I still have my script. You have the eternal couple of Claudio and Hero, those starstruck lovers without the feuding families or death (well, almost). You also have the two famous bickerers: Benedick and Beatrice (!) who feud constantly and have to somehow be reigned in by the rest of the cast (any ideas???). You also have the plot of Don Pedro, the prince, bringing in his rebellious, conniving brother, Don John, whom he captured from a small coup that occurred immediately before Act I. Don John is determined to bring down his brother in all aspects of life. And plus, he's extra rebellious because he just got beat. All of these reasons, plus a pair of bumbling, drunk idiots for comical relief (as if we needed any) that just serve to get in the way but end up having the solutions to every problem!!! It's a great thing.

Plus, every film version of MAAN that I've seen (the Shakespeare: Retold (modern) version and the Kenneth Branaugh version) has been very well done and I've fallen in love with both. In fact, as soon as I heard about the production around the corner, I watched the Retold version in celebration!!!! Plus, in the Kenneth Branaugh version, it has Kenneth Branaugh (well, of course), Robert Sean Leonard (Dr. Wilson in House), AND Denzel Washington!!!!!!! WHAT!!!! He's awesome. He plays Don Pedro. LOVE. There is a nudish scene in the beginning, so beware, but besides for that, it's awesome!!!

In case you were wondering, I was the Messenger. Yeah, that's right. A girl playing a guy's part. Take that Shakespeare. It opens July 16! I'm excited.

The Scarlet Pimpernel. Swoon.

Ok, This is less of great literature but while I'm procrastinating A Brave New World I'll write about a book that makes me swoon. The Scarlet Pimpernel!!!!! It's rather good! You see, I watched several film versions first which made me want to read the book which was provided to me by that little used book shop on Mt. Moriah (they are so sweet). Ian McKellan was in one of the versions! Shakespeare points! It was written in 1905 by Baroness Emma Orczy and it is practically timeless. The time period it is set in is French Revolution era (aka. The Bloody Revolution). It is the tale of a mysterious gentleman who rescues the French aristocrats who do not deserve death even though they are admittedly pompous and arrogant. Meanwhile, French native Marguerite, married to Sir Percy Blakeney, is having trust issues in her marriage. You will never guess who the Scarlet Pimpernel is!!!! This book is like the English version of the Three Musketeers - both are not very valuable as literature and both are good reads. Except the Three Musketeers will always be better. It's true. I love this book! It's a good, fast read. I give it 30 stars!!!

By the way, if the name "Scarlet Pimpernel" sounds familiar, and you don't quite know why, it's probably because Bugs Bunny did a parody called " The Scarlet Pumpernickle!!!"

O Brave New World, That Has Such People In't!

1984 was good, but if you ever wanted a bit more Shakespeare in it, go for a Brave New World! Really, really good. Someone asked me to choose between it and 1984, and I couldn't. Because they are essentially the same thing but different and both equally well written. Wonderful Dystopias!!!

This is one of those novels with an awesome character list because each name has like 5 meanings!!! Maybe I exaggerate, but they are really awesome.

John Savage - (The most basic, simple name in the English language describing his character)(Explains itself)

Bernard Marx - (First name meaning Brave Bear, very ironic) (And Marx. Just Marx.)

Helmholtz Watson - (After "Herman von" who believed in science's civilizing powers) (a common Brit name)

Lenina Crowne - (After Lenin, the one and only) (She had something about her that acted as a "crown" and drew people to her)

Mustapha Mond - (After, I believe, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk - founder of the Republic of Turkey and Kemalism, which promotes secularism and scientific progress) (Mond is the root for the world?)

Fanny Crowne - Just a name that is ordinary, I think. Symbolizes the common masses?

Henry Foster - (Henry Ford, obviously) (William Z. was an American Marxist)

Linda - Means "pretty," which is ironic because eventually she is anything but, and it is one of the things she mourns

Popé - Indian leader in 1670ish. Like those uncivilized people, he mixed his indian beliefs with Christian ideaology.

That's it for characters! Yay!

Yes! New look!

Sorry, the little tab at the top said "New options, want to try them out?" I just couldn't resist.

Alright. The Stranger....by Albert Camus. To be honest, I liked The Plague better. Well, que sera sera, it's a groundbreaking book. It is his first, after all. He also wrote "The Myth of Sisyphus" the same year. Well, you've heard my lectures on Camus and his absurdity and The Stranger is exactly the same. According to the back of the book, he was thrust into a "senseless murder." Does the word senseless sound familiar? Because it is absurd. This man does things like murder, love, attends his mother's funeral, makes promises, and all with a complete lack of feeling. Except perhaps towards the dog. But we'll get to that later. First, for a motif.

HEAT - While this guy was burying his mother, he kept mentioning the oppressive heat. They made the traditional walk from the nursing home to the church and it was hot. Very hot. There was this old man who, they said, was almost engaged to his mother despite their ages. He was very old and yet honored his mother enough to walk the distance. He cut corners of fields and struggled along, only to collapse at the church. According to the nurse, " She said, 'If you go slowly, you risk getting sunstroke. But if you go too fast, you work up a sweat and then catch a chill inside the church.' She was right. There was no way out." Also, on the beach, he killed a man because he got crazy with the heat, it seems. That was his defense and it says " The sun was the same as it had been the day I'd buried Maman, and like then, my forehead especially was hurting me, all the veins in it throbbing under the skin. It was this burning, which I couldn't stand anymore, that made me move forward." Interpret it how you will, it seems to be the impulsive burning of the senseless world when confronted with a decision: to mourn, which he didn't, to kill or move on, which he chose to kill. When he is moved to prison, he does not feel heat, and on the day of his trial, the entire room burns because another major decision is to be made: death or no death.

This novel is all about the Absurd Man, who is a STRANGER in the world. Stranger, get it? He gets used to everything and feels nothing. He turns to regular pursuits and feels no pleasure in them but does them because they are expected of him. He gets used to prison, for goodness sake.

2 things I want to touch on before I close this novel for good:

1. There was an old man at the apartments who had this old dog that he hated. After his wife died, he got a dog to kick around. Every evening they would go on a walk and kick and mumble and yell and swear up and down the street. Pobre perro. It ran away. The old man was distraught. He was lonely. He was used to his wife, he was used to his dog, and he missed the previous life simply because he was used to it. Just like Meursault got used to his life before prison and missed it. Simply because he was used to it.

2. Meursault, upon his trial and other circumstances, simply wanted over and over to explain himself, which he never really got an opportunity to do. The prosecutor and defense attorney gave their speeches and did their dance and probably got a drink after. But he never got a chance to defend himself. Camus likes to point out not only the senselessness of the universe but also the senselessness of the government, but more specifically, the justice system. Camus harped on it a lot during The Plague (the injustice of the justice system was part of the human plague).

Alright, as for a review? Recommendation? I really didn't like it. Want a real good overview of absurdist theory in something? Read The Plague (Le Peste) for a novel and The Guest (L'Hote) for a short story and The Myth of Sisyphus for an essay. And please read a short biography or context something before or after reading! It will make more sense! He was depressing for a reason!

The Right Field.

Yes, very soon I will write reviews on The Stranger and The Scarlet Pimpernel (swoon) and I'm currently reading Searching for God Knows What by Donald Miller and A Brave New World. Remember Ceremony? I read the first four pages. I realized it was going to be exactly like Beloved. Blast. So I'm procrastinating reading it for now.

Anyhow, I realized the past couple days something which I've known for a bit now. Of course, I need to actually delve into the field, but now I know that I'm in the right field. The past couple days I've visited Harding University and have been visiting major seminar things and Honors College seminar things and drawing up my schedule. When I looked over the requirement sheet for Non-Licensure English Majors and looked over my requirements and the pick-four-classes-from-this-section section. I got excited. I will be taking Brit Lit this fall and of the four specialty classes I'll probably be taking Shakespeare! Literary Theory! British Novel! and this new class on Feminism/women in Literature from a professor who just defended her dissertation - which was a series of articles on Jane Austen. Yay! I'm so excited! And since I'm an Honors Scholar, we get to do (and actually are pretty required to do) these Honors Contract things that let us attend normal classes, but drop some of the more normal and mundane requirements in exchange for an extra paper or project that is of a different skill set or more suited to our field or something. That Shakespeare class is hereby CONTRACTED!!!! My new phrase. You like?

No, but I'm very excited. Actually, my "academic advisor" and I (she's a professor in my field - English) drew up my schedule for this fall, carefully avoiding some gen eds I might AP out of or take in an international program, and came up with a satisfactory schedule. Then she paused and said "You don't have any English. Do you want some English?" I said the equivalent of "Def Yes!" and dropped speech in favor of Brit Lit. I'm already starting my core requirements! The rest of my schedule includes intermediate Spanish, Communication/Critical Thinking, Honors New Testament, and and hour-and-a-half statistics class at 7:30 in the morning. But you know what? Since all of my other classes are on MWF, after that class and chapel on Tuesday and Thursday, I'm off scott free!!! To study, of course.

Le Peste - The Plague.

You realize, you could make a great parody called Le Pesto? About the terrible decline of pasta?

Well, my readers, all 2 of you, today is the day we begin examining Albert Camus, and it won't be the last cause I really need to read The Stranger next, which is actually on my list. Anywho, a rundown on someone who is becoming one of my favorite authors:

Albert Camus: Awesome. Is he a nihilist? Existentialist? Absurdist? A conglomeration of all three? Possibly. To give you a clue of his basic philosophy, he once wrote an essay on Sisyphus: The greek legend who was eternally condemned to roll a boulder up a hill only to have it fall back down when inches from the top. That pointlessness, that imposed, deliberate cruelty, is what he called ABSURD. And he pretty much based his work off of it. He was French Algerian and wrote novels and plays and short stories and essays and articles. He ran the underground newspaper during the French occupation and continued to write to the people once they had attained their freedom. I love the first article he writes to France after the German occupation: "Combat Continues." He loved both Algeria and France and hated the conflict between them. This exile because of combat becomes the theme of many of his works including his short story The Guest. In fact, the theme of exile haunts The Plague up and down.

LE PESTE:

Themes. Now the wonderful thing about Camus is that he is very straightforward and obvious in a duh-are-you-listening-now sort of way. He wants you to get the point. And that is why picking out themes is so easy.

EXILE: Now, in the exile the bubonic/pneumonic plague comes and visits a little French Algerian town and they are forced to quarantine the town, effectively EXILING it. Now, is anyone thinking AP essay? It says that the first thing that the people were exiled from was friends and relatives, hope and peace, the future, and the outside world. Suddenly, the town was diseased and no one wanted to go near it though everyone in it wanted to go out. Hey, could disease be a symbol? Hope is also a big deal in the novel, for while the town was mostly exiled from it, the last remnants of hope made them survive and keep on fighting. If I knew this book better, and about 3 months ago, I would've written about it one the AP exam.

LOVE: This is very weird. Camus writes about love in a way that comes out differently in every case. Over the whole town, an apathy fell over love and marriages in general and everyone just figured that if they died, they died and it didn't matter until the quarantine lifted. There were two distinct couples that were separated - man inside the town, woman outside. In Rieux's case, he decided to stay in the town and work ceaselessly to rid the town of it. In his friend's case, I will find the name later, he worked and connived to sneak out of the town to be his sweetheart, then on the eve of his escape, he realized that he needed to help and would lead an empty (absurd alert) life outside the quarantine if he did not sacrifice himself. Guilt led him back. How did this all end? Rieux's wife died because she went away for her health and died just a few weeks before the quarantine lifted. Ironic? Absurd alert. The guy who was going to chicken out got nervous before he met his girl, but it all ended up really well. She just swooned all over him.

So, the fickle man was rewarded while the constant man was punished. So much for a fair universe. Oh yeah, absurdity.

Alright, well, ABSURDITY is a philosophy where the universe is unfair to the point of absurdity. Absurdity, in case you are not getting a clear picture, is ... "tragic, meaningless irony. Usually the inflictor of this tragedy is nature, life, the universe, or some other superior source. Camus states his definition of absurdity: 'Perhaps this notion will become clear if I hazard this outrageous remark: the absurd is sin without God'." Yes, i did just quote my own paper on Camus. And I did get a C on it but that's not really any fault of the reasoning itself (citing error). Can you quote yourself? Anyhow, according to Camus, there is a absurd cycle with several steps. First, you live a totally pointless, absurd life. Next, you realize that your life is absurd and become all depressed and junk. Third, you realize with some sort of joy that yes, your life is absurd, but it really doesn't matter anyhow because everybody's life is absurd!!! Yay!!! Okay, that's the simplified form, but it works for the book. Rieux ends up running the full scale of the cycle from a fairly pointless life, to a life of ceaseless work that runs in circles cause the plague never lets up, to skinny dipping. It's true. Now, the Spaniard and the old guy counting beans have realized the absurdity of life and fully embrace it. Love the old guy counting beans. According to the Spaniard, the ultimate goal in life was to find peace which would eradicate humanity's "plague." Peace could be found through the path of sympathy. Sadly, there is a man who never quite realizes his plight. He is the Sisyphus, but instead of rolling boulders, he is writing a book. Not really a book, cause he only ever got to one sentence which he tirelessly went over again and again to perfect the sentence. Because if he could complete this Sisyphean task, he would somehow get his wife back. He was so dismal in the end, that he burned his manuscript. Shortly to the end, he was full of hope because he had just thought of something else and the burning really didn't matter because he had memorized it and all. And then, he died. Absurdity indeed. There is more to the novel, but I think I will leave you with mere quotes because no one writes like Camus.

Stupidity has a knack of getting its way; as we should see if we were not always so much wrapped up in ourselves. ( He mentioned wars in the stupidity category.)

All the rest hung on mere threads and trivial contingencies; you couldn't waste your time on it. The thing was to do your job as it should be done.

In short, we returned to our prison-house, we had nothing left us but the past, and even if some were tempted to live in the future, he had speedily to abandon the idea - anyhow, as soon as could be - once they felt the wounds that imagination inflicts on those who yield themselves to it.

Hostile to the past, impatient of the present, and cheated of the future, we were much like those who men's justice, or hatred, forces to live behind prison bars.

Thus each of us had to be content to live only for the day, alone under the vast indifference of the sky.

But there was also darkness in men's hearts, and the facts were as little calculated to reassure our townfolk as the wild stories going round about the barraks.

For there's no denying that the Plague had gradually killed off in all of us the faculty not of love only but even of friendship. naturally enough, since love asks something of the future, and nothing was left us but a series of present moments.

Can one be a saint without God? (please see above)

I can say I know the world inside out, as you may see - that each of us has the plague within him; no one, no one on earth is free from it. And I know, too, that we much keep endless watch on ourselves lest in a careless moment we breathe in somebody's face and fasten the infection on him...All the rest - health, integrity, purity (if you like) - is a product of the human will, of a vigilance that must never falter, The good man, the man who infects hardly anyone, is the man who has the fewest lapses of attention.

Among them I can at least try to discover how one attains to the third category [healer]; in other words, to peace.

Alright, I'm almost done with The Stranger (which is actually on my list) and I am going out of town on a road trip to my sister's wedding so I'll hopefully be able to finish it within a day! I also picked up 3 books today from second hand book shops (I love those!). I got The Scarlet Pimpernel by Baroness Orczy (I've watched all the film versions!), Ceremony by Leslie Marmon Silko (which is actually on my list as well) and 95 poems, a collection of poems by e.e. cummings. I'm pretty excited. I love that guys. Alright, sorry it took me so long and hopefully I'll return to blogging next Tuesday or Wednesday!

Literature.....? Maybe.

Alright. I saw a movie tonight. Which is NOT a book. Or at least, it was based on a book, but not really literature. BUT. I saw the very cheesy looking Juliet's Wall movie. I know, I don't see movie's in theatres a lot and definitely not chick flicks really, but Ashley wanted to go and I guess I like that girl...

As some may know, I am an affirmed, positively, definitely ANTI-Romeo and Juliet. I mean, it's about on par with Lord of the Flies for subtlety, other plays of his are better written (I think), it's kinda cheesy itself (What light from Yonder Window breaks???It is the east!!! And Juliet - drumroll- is the sun!!!!), aaaaannnd Shakespeare stole the stinking plot from those Italians. Argue Ecclesiastes as you may, but it is on a list of offenses. Come on.

But I'm okay Juliet now. I still think Romeo is stupid, but I'm okay with Juliet. Why? Because I'm a sucker for chick flicks but also because she has turned into this incredible symbol. It is a symbol for true, go-chase-after-her, throw-caution-to-the-winds love. Thousands of women and men have written to her, asking her for direction in love. She has become the patron saint of love. Way to go, Shakespeare. I guess I'm a fan of her now because there is a hopeless romantic inside of me that really really lacks that chasing courage in some cases but also wouldn't mind being Juliet, come what may. It's that kissing in the rain thing.

And yes, Artie, it is a girl thing.

Stupidity has a knack of getting its way; as we should see if we were not always so much wrapped up in ourselves.

All the rest hung on mere threads and trivial contingencies; you couldn't waste your time on it. The thing was to do your job as it should be done.

Stargirl: Character Analysis

At first, I thought "I need to finish the Camus novel I just procured, but I really want to blog!" Then I thought "This blog can survive on different material besides novel-review content!!!" Alright, maybe not a brilliant thought, but it worked. I'm going to write today about a character I've kind of discovered in several works and, of course, how she's been ironically used.

Alright, think of a Byronic hero. Now think the complete opposite. There you get Stargirl. She may have other names according to other people, but I'm naming her after the protagonist in the young adult novel by Jerry Spinelli. She is slightly eccentric in her bubbly, agape character and active imagination but one trait stands out in every setting: INNOCENCE. Innocence pivots her character and sometimes leads to her downfall. In my opinion it must be difficult to really pull off a Stargirl in adult literature because totally innocent characters, those guardian angels, can become rather...well...boring. And unbelievable. But they often play vital positions in books as the one who sacrifices something, or sacrifices themselves for the plot or the undeserving. Hello, Christ figure! I'll tell you where I've spotted some Stargirls:

Bridge to Terabithia, Leslie Burke. I'm once again harping on young adult literature, but as this book broke some boundaries and is studied in classrooms all over the world, I think I'm justified in my decision. Leslie works on the life of Jess Aarons and creates an imaginary world to transform the character of Jess from timid to fearless. She and her family, who suits her character, have no TV and generally have fun by painting the house. She is considered eccentric by her school and is kind of liked but avoided because of her difference. She is life changing and ultimately sacrifices her life for imagination. She is so perfect...

Dracula, Lucy Westenra. Maybe I should just blog about Dracula. OOHh. It gives me the shivers. Well, Lucy is the perfect, one-dimensional Victorian woman. Honestly, between her and Mina, it does get a bit tiresome at times. Anyhow, she is a perfect, very beloved woman. Proof: She was proposed to 3 times in one day. Really, Lucy? Her name, Lucy, has latin roots in luz, meaning light. Pure, innocent light. She meets her downfall through absolutely no fault of her own, but her character. Apparently, Dracula is attracted to innocence he can corrupt. Her body (though not her soul) is corrupted and she is sacrificed in the plot for the downfall of Dracula.

A Tale of Two Cities, Lucie Manette. No....Lucie can't be symbolic... The perfect and most boring and yet very important character is Lucie Manette. She saves her father from his wrongful imprisonment by her goodness and light and once again attracts 2 or 3 men to her side. She is innocent to a T and proves it by constantly swooning and yet going to stand in the same place in the marketplace every day. Oh, the sacrifice! *swoon* In this book, she does not sacrifice, she is sacrificed for by Sydney Carton.

Any heroine in any book by Thomas Hardy. At least, the 3 that I've read. The marvelous thing about these Stargirls is that they have one flaw: Vanity, too quick to give their heart away, just existing in Tess. They have flaws, but they regularly attract too many men and have symbolic names (Tess=Summer (Pure), Elfride = Elf (magical, mystic, pure), Bathsheba Everdene = beautiful with a flaw and eternal). They are all beaten and abused by the world and are sometimes misled into existing with the world. But they usually find some sort of salvation at the end. Stupid Angel. Please read Far From the Madding Crowd though!

IRONIC USE: Great Expectations, Estella. Complete with a symbolic name, this Stargirl is a regular little devil! Not kidding. She is set up by her crazy aunt (?) to be a perfect, pure little girl, who regularly leads believing little boys like Pip down the path of destruction. Oh dear. In fact, Dickens plays on the reader's expectation and knowledge of the Victorian Stargirl and uses this to turn her into a demon.

Blast. I forgot Clarisse from Farenheit 451, who was the inspiration for this post. Oh well, she resembles the Spinelli Stargirl more by valuing imagination, having a symbolic name, and generally being eccentric by society. OOh. Without realizing it, I've divided them into two categories: Victorian Stargirl and Spinelli Stargirl. I could so write a book.

NUMBER 40! Someone pop a balloon!

Returning to the original purpose of this blog: counting books. Though the AP use was very useful in the very short time I actually used it. It kind of makes me sad that I didn't get to use One Hundred Years of Solitude, though. It's funny. I printed off my posts about only 3 books and still the went to about 4 pages in size 9 font. That's a lot of writing. Huh.

Anyhow! I finished my 40th book on the list after about 3 months due to school distractions: A Tale of Two Cities! I wish I could have devoted more attention to this book. Obligations left me reading this book at 11 for 15 minutes wishing I could justify staying up till 1 to read. I just couldn't. But today I pushed through and presently need a new book to start summer with (but don't worry, I'm working on that).

I LOVE Charles Dickens. He has gorgeous, thick, rich language which he uses to express subtle, or not so subtle, ideas and create odd yet very credible characters that you can easily envision with your mind's eye. My favorite in Great Expectations was Miss Havisham, of course, but I had several favorites in TOTC. First, there was Cruncher. He is such a minor character and it amazes me Dickens spent so much time developing someone who would be of fairly important, yet minimal use in the novel. Things I know that I didn't need to really know about him. He has a wife who is a good, yet persecuted, Christian. He has a son who for some reason really looks up to his father. He is a grave robber. He is an odd-job guy. Actually the last two have quite some importance in the plot. I also enjoyed Miss Pross. She is genuinely English through and through. These ladies are a marvel in British literature. It is the British recognizing the stereotype of strong spinsters, being proud of it, then making fun of it. Amazing. Miss Pross is amazing and useful in several different ways. Her brother is important, as well as herself and her devotion to "ladybird." I'm not even sure what she looks like, but Dickens describes her so well, I instantly connect her to a character from one of the Britcoms I like. The third is Madame, sorry, Citizeness Defarge, of course. She is one of the prime characters of the novel and appears again and again, accompanied by her knitting. She even elevates to an angel of death in her last scene. Dickens and characters go together.

Dickens also knows how to make an entrance and an exit. The first line is still slightly hokey to me because of its overuse (juxtaposition? Nah.) but the last line which is also frequently quoted has garnered so much more respect because of the ending scene. But I'll let you decide for yourself:

- It was the best of times, it was the worst of times; it ws the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness; it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity; it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness; it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair; we had everything before us, we had nothing before us; we were all going directly to Heaven, we were all going the other way.

-It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

Ah. The last quote just hits me. It means more than one thing and is sentimental and heroic and touching as all get out. Please. Read the book. But DON'T be an idiot and read the last few pages. Grr.

Though there is so much more to the novel, I will limit myself to the views it takes on female strength. But you cannot have female strength without mentioning the strength of the common people in this book. They go together. I will examine the dynamics of two relationships. First, the relationship between Citizeness Defarge and Citizen Defarge. There is a reason that everyone remembers Madame Defarge over her husband. To put it in perspective, they are the common man in France and the movers of that bloody revolution. They own a wine shop. She is always the stronger one over her husband. He is impatient and seemingly weak of character. He sympathizes with the plight of the Manette's. He is weak next to her. She is the true mover of the Revolution and at first mainly works through her husband, though she reveals herself more and more as time goes on. Second, lets move to Miss Pross and Cruncher, of all people. Pross is strong. In fact, in a show of love vs. hate, she triumphs over Madame Defarge. When push comes to shove, Cruncher starts blithering about his wife and child in England and Pross is the one evaluating the situation and figuring out a logical solution. In this book, it is always the female that has the clear head, logical mind, resourcefulness, and generally strength of character. Correction - it is the lower class women who have these virtues. For example, "Ladybird" does not have any of this strength of character. Now she is a lovely, patient, virtuous lady, but lacks the nitty gritty that the other two have. In fact, the Darnays are so nice, that you just know something is going to happen to them. Now, it seems that Dickens celebrates woman's strength of character. He also values the value of the "common man," but with the latter comes a warning encapsulated in the character of "Vengance." Revenge became a huge part of the novel, and Dickens has a great quote concerning it. For now, I will end with some quotes.

-Sadly, sadly, the sun rose; it rose upon no sadder sight than the man of good abilities and good emotions, incapable of their directed exercise, incapable of his own help and his own happiness, sensible of the blight on him, and resigning himself to let it eat him away.

-I see a beautiful city and a brilliant people rising from this abyss, and, in their struggles to be truly free, in their triumphs and defeats, through long years to come, I see the evil of this time and of the previous time of which this is the natural birth, gradually making expiation for itself and wearing out.

-Crush humanity out of shape once more, under similar hammers, and it will twist itself into the same tortured forms. Sow the same seed of rapacious license and oppression over again, and it will surely yield the same fruit according to its kind.

-Waste forces within him, and a desert all around, this man stood still on his way across a silent terrace, and saw for a moment, lying in the wilderness before him, a mirage of honorable ambition, self-denial, and perseverance. In the fair city of this vision, there were airy galleries from which the loves and graces looked upon him, gardens in which the fruits of life hung ripening, waters of Hope that sparkled in his sight. A moment, and it was gone. Climbing to a high chamber in a well of houses, he threw himself down in his clothes on a neglected bed, and its pillow was wet with wasted tears.

-I have sometimes sat alone here of an evening, listening, until I have made the echoes out to be the echoes of all the footsteps that are coming by and by into our lives.

-I have sometimes sat alone here of an evening, listening, until I have made the echoes out to be the echoes of all the footsteps that are coming by and by into our lives.

I know they are a bit out of order, but something has come to my attention: I have failed to expound the wonderful character of Mr. Sydney Carton. Sigh. He is a tragic hero. I love him very much. That's not so much expounding as rambling, but there it is.

My next books:

Nonficiton: How to Become a Writer. It looks very...interesting. Almost like the Strunk and White of writing.

Fiction: Hopefully, The Plauge, by Albert Camus. Technically, it is not on my list, the Stranger is. But I find myself craving his writing. I got sucked into some post-war essays at the book store the other day and realized it was my signal that I needed to read Camus, who has beautiful writing. I have opportunity once more to stay up till 3 in the morning just to read and I feel it is high time already. Welcome, summer. I may read now.

DYSTOPIAS!

Alright, so, since this nice little "100 book list" blog has morphed into an AP English study tool for now and the AP test is, oh yeah, THIS THURSDAY, I need to rush things a bit. So here goes a crash course and Fahrenheit 451 and 1984. Their main similarity (besides numbers in the title)? They are both dystopian novels. Meaning that it's like a perfect world. Except not.

Now, George Orwell is a whole lot darker than Ray Bradbury in these novels. It is like comparing Mary Wollenstone Craft's works to Pride and Prejudice, or juvenalian to saturnalian (???) satire. One is a whole lot more harder than the other, though they both do the same thing. 451 introduces a world where everyone is glued to the television screen and is not allowed to expand their minds by means of books. Cause they're all banned. In 1984, everyone is watched all the time by telescreens and their freedom to EVERYTHING is restricted. Orwell's world is darker and harsher.

Each book has a male protagonist that, despite their soul-quenching environments, start learning the truth via some inner conscience and some outer source (Julia, Faber). They both have someone who betrays them (The Antique Shop Man, Montag) who they previously trusted. They both have some sort of woman issue: they have their estranged wives and their side interests that help them rebel and is all about freedom (Julia, Clarisse). Of course, they girls themselves are entirely innocent.

Hey! I'm going to elaborate now. Also, the societies are very much the same. First, they center around the city. The wild outdoors, the variable of nature, scares these overwhelming systems because they cannot control it. It is where our rebellious protagonists go to ... rebel. Or escape. It was while taking in the night through an unprecedented walk that Montag meets that girl and starts (*gasp*) thinking. He also finds his way in the wilderness again at the end in the book circle. Winston finds his way in the wilderness at the very beginning of his rebellion when he and Julia commit their "political act." From then on, they find places of seclusion "outside" or in other various symbols of uncontrollable strength. For example, they often find themselves in churches. Religion is like the wilderness, in that it is powerful and difficult to control, even though Insoc destroyed them. They still manage to live on in some ways.

Each book also holds the presence of a "protecting" force that also serves as destroyer. In 451, that is served by the firemen, but more specifically, the fantastic dog robot. Since it is a robot, it is also devoid of all human feeling and becomes a tool in the hands of a society that has similarly lost its humanity. In 1984, Ingsoc is the society that has lost its humanity, but the telescreens serve a parallel to the robot dog. It serves a protective feature in society and yet also betrays Winston and Julia in the upper room.

Technology is also a big part in each book. In 451, the televisions that take up a wall spur the wife (and the whole society) into a want for more and more and more mindless diversion. Since there is something to replace books, it is easier for the government to control. The telescreens in 1984 serve a similar purpose.

The complete opposite to this mindless diversion is books and writing. Both rebellions in 451 and 1984 have to do with reading and writing and books. Montag kept a book. Winston wrote something in a diary. Montag started reading. Winston obtained THE BOOK. Clearly, education is the key to mind-numbing activities.

Now, before I start in on differences, think of something. Is this just a bit scary? And which is scarier?

The destructive nature of the societies differ greatly. Though, in a way they can just be taken as different parts of the same cycle. 451's society wishes to usher their citizens into a mindless state induced by technology and lack of books. Force is used. But such things as thinking and taking long walks is seen as odd and is discouraged but not forbidden. In 1984, there are strict rules and the citizens live in constant fear. Even the patriotic Mrs. Whats-her-name with dust on her face lives in constant fear. Extermination is wholly possible. They government controls every aspect of people's lives and does not relent or give grace. At all.

The class models also differ. 1984 has two classes: the regular people and the proles. 451 seems to live in a constant state of suburbia. I'm going to stop talking now because honestly, I need to study up more on both books before I state a definite list of differnces. But you get the point.

In characters, there are also several differnces. For example, Montag is a guy you might possibly want to take home to your parents - he is a true hero. His only flaw is really one introduced by his society. Winston is yucky. His only redeeming quality is the fact that he is the last man in Britain who has a stinking conscience. Perhaps the amount of flaw in the man is influenced by the degree of flaw in the society. But I still like Montag better. And also, Montag pulls through in the end. Winston falls in Room 101. Clarisse and Julia differ the most though. Julia is hard headed and uncaring and rebels simply to rebel. She is a teenager of Ingsoc. So pretty much just a nonserious side effect of Ingsoc. She has been to the extremes of dirtiness but finds a bit of redemption finally in her relationship with Winston. Clarisse is...Stargirl. Which is how I'm going to name these types of characters from now on. They are wholly likeable and INNOCENT. They are curious and delight in the oddities of life. They thrive on social attention but also are content with solitude. But in the whole, they are innocent. Julia and Clarisse's roles in the novels are the same but their characters are completely different.

The last difference here, the endings are different. 1984 ends with "two gin-scented tears" and a totally broken down The Last Man on Earth. The Dystopia has won. 451 ends with Montag finding other crazy kids just like him out in the wilderness. There is Hope. There is a counter society that could one day rise up and school that dystopia.

The question is....which one is scarier?

Despite the hope at the end, I think 451 is scarier. It resembles our own society the most.

In the movie Stranger than Fiction, the main character wanders around for a couple days and keeps 2 tallies in a little notebook: signs that he is in a comedy and signs that he is in a tragedy. Every once in a while, as you are watching the news or thinking about the omnipresence of technology in our society, make a little mark in your mental book...

are we living in a utopia, or a dystopia?

C&R. II

Alright. Dreams first. Dreams are very important in this novel. They reveal true guilt, true emotion and seem to have a deep conscience to boot. There are three that stand out to me.

First: The horse scene. No, a head did not show up in his bed. Synopsis: Mean man beats old nag. Child (Raskol) gets angry. Mean man kills nag. Child very sad. Actually, our AP class had a grand time discussing this scene. It is obviously symbolic, showing the oppressor and the oppressed. The question is, who is the man and who is the nag? I am of the opinion that at some point most everyone is in both positions. People like Sonia, though are always going to be the oppressed, though, and people like Luhzin the Loser are always going to be the oppressor. But most of us switch roles. Now, this scene comes early in the novel so you don't really get to know these characters early on. Just remember, if an author makes a point of introducing a character *coughsoniacough* they'll probably be important later.

Second: The scream. Now, this isn't quite a dream. Kind of. Not really. But it counts. And once again, Raskolnikov's subconsciousness is really moral. It's right after Raskolnikov commits his deed and he is consumed by a fever. Symbolic? Nah. Anyhow, he lies in this state of half asleep and he hears screaming and violence below and when he wakes up...he finds it's all a dream. That's what a guilty conscience will do to you.

Third: Svidrigailov's dream. That creep. It's a very weird dream about his obsession with little girls (purity, innocence) and how she turns into a prostitute (loss of innocence at his hands). It's very creepy. There's more to read into it if anyone would like to take up that cross (ba dum ching), but for now I'm going leave it.

Alright, I'll get to stuff like symbols later (I'm gonna spend some time on crosses be warned!) but for now I have to wash my hair and get to sleep cause it's gonna be a long and very good and very stressful day tomorrow. Goodnight!

Crime and Punishment.

I love this book. I mean, let's be honest. Its a dismal Russian novel with a very angsty and morally ambiguous protagonist with shining angels who are really prostitutes or beleaguered by a sadist. Oh and it centers around a murder. This is an exciting book. Very exciting! The happy ending is a bit of a bummer though.

Alright. Themes. Well, we got a few basic ones of redemption and consumption and fear and destiny and human nature. Some rough draft of them theses:

-In C&R, each of the characters question the source of redemption and who will save them from the sin and guilt that consumes their lives.

-Sins consume men's souls.

-Man cannot control his destiny without some sort of punishment or retribution.

-No one is alone (sorry. I just had to.)

-Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov prove that though men's nature can be both good and evil, salvation, as well as damnation are possible endings to a base crime.

As I said, rough drafts.

Alright, characters. There are many characters and they all have roughly 5 names each. Well, that's only a little bit of hyperbole. Hmmm. Let's see....

Rodion Romanovitch "Rodya" Raskolnikov - protagonist

Sonia (last name here) - Rodya's match/redeemer/local prostitute

Pyotor Luhzin Petrovitch - loser, government official, Dounia's fiance

Avdotya Romanova "Dounia" Raskolnikov - Rodya's sister, Svid's object, and a fiery lady

Pulcheria Alexandrovna Raskolnikov - dreamy mother of Rodya

Marmeledov - Father of Sonia and a drunk to boot

Dmitri Prokofitch Razumihin - Rodya's bestie and in luuuuv with Dounia

Katerina Ivanova - crazy, consumed mother of Sonia who married beneath herself

Alyona Ivanova - pawnbrowker, deceased

Arkady Ivanovitch Svidrigailov - resident sadist

Lizaveta - sister of Alyona, owned a cross

There are others. But I am weary of using the v key.

I have to go, but I intend on talking about quotes, dreams and symbols later. Especially blood. And then I might talk about how it relates to Frankenstein! And Macbeth!

Hamlet, Prince of Denmark

Well, this is a bit of a flashback, isn't it. Now, if you are familiar with my studies this year, they include Macbeth and King Lear. Hamlet was decidedly last year. So last year. But I found some quotes and notes the other day so here it is. (fq = famous quote)

-"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." -Marcellus (fq)

-"All is not well. I doubt some foul play." - Hamlet (THIS IS FORESHADOWING)

-"The serpent that did sting thy father's life now wears his crown." (The ghost reveals that the king/uncle guy killed him to take the crown. And Shakespeare really didn't like snakes.)

-"Brevity is the soul of wit." - Polonius (fq)

-"Words, words, words." -Hamlet (fq)

-"For there is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so." -Hamlet (fq and theme. There's a lot of mixed morals in this play. I'm guessing that this is at a part where Hamlet's convincing himself that killing his uncle would be just okey-dokey.)

-"Though this be madness, yet there is method in't." -Polonius (fq! I quote this all the time)

-"A dream itself is but a shadow." (Shakespeare really liked dreams. A lot. And there are several 'dreams' within Hamlet, more in Macbeth but even so. This might refer to Hamlet's father scaring the mess outa Hamlet. He doubts he even saw the ghost and might refer to it as a shadow.)

-"My words fly up, my thoughts remain below

Words without thoughts never to heaven go." - Hamlet. (I surely love Shakespeare's couplets. This is where Hamlet is surely going to kill his step-father and surely going to hell for it.)

-"Madness in great ones must not unwatch'd go." -Claudius, (now. Who goes crazy in this again? Let's see...Hamlet. OPHELIA.)

-"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." - about Queen Gertrude (fq + kudos for using methinks.)

-"Sweets to the sweet, Farewell!" - Gertrude, upon Ophelia's burial (fq)

-"The rest is silence." - Hamlet. (Gosh. Gotta love Shakespeare.)

-"Now cracks the noble heart." -Horatio.

So I'm listening to amazing, powerful cello music which would make for amazingness at the last scene of Hamlet I'm just now realizing. It makes lines like the last three there all the more powerful.

1984 symbols

Well, this is a bit of a flashback, isn't it? But it's necessary. And once again, I'm being a bit lazy and rushed here and posting something which I've already written. In one sense, it's probably really good cause I knew more back then and can refresh my memory with my former self. So here are some of the symbols and their explanations.

1. The Journal Quote: “To mark the paper was the decisive act. In small clumsy letters he wrote: April 4, 1984. He sat back. A sense of complete helplessness had descended upon him.” Part I, Page 7

This is the first decisive political act against Ingsoc that Winston does. Before, he just thought (which in itself is a punishment), but if the buying of the journal in a world where knickknacks are obsolete and pen which is also mostly obsolete are incriminating acts, the entries which Winston writes that question truth and rebel against authority (DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER) is a death sentence. The helplessness that the quote above speaks of could stem from the knowledge that Ingsoc will bring him down sooner or later now that he’s commited this act in a sense of physical helplessness, or from the sense that the relief to get these words on paper leaves him emotionally helpless. Either way, it’s a sense of what’s done is done, the point of no return. There is no going back from the path of rebellion.

2. The Two-Minute Hate

This section is very important because it really brings to light two of the most important characters in the book and because it captures a picture of the Ingsoc society and its reformation of sane people to raging sheep. First, Julia is introduced (the dark-haired girl behind Winston). Her placement could point to her budding or blossoming interest in him or to focus on his unease around her (which, of course, will lead to some sort of romantic relationship). Either way, this passage describes her as violently passionate for Ingsoc society. O’ Brien, the second soon-to-be major character is described as similarly patriotic. His signifigance to the scene does not end in this excerpt, however. After the Hate, he exchanges glances with Winston in a way that might have been the first betrayal of Winston to the thought police and instantly wins Winston’s trust.

This scene also points to the degrading effects of Ingsoc upon society. The instatement of Two Minute Hates just personifies the object of The Party: to degrade and debase all sense and reason and turn it into meaningless passion and hate. Julia later points out that it is possibly part of an effort to erase all sexual desires. But it is more than erasing sexual desires. It is an effort to erase all desires and turn the people into a willing, impassioned, malleable mob that will use crowd mentality to sweep all doubters and questionable, along with sense and reason, into the fold of imposed senselessness. (“The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in.”) As the quote phrases it: a frenzy. Of course, this has its small downfalls as Winston says within this same moment that for a moment he hated upon Julia and even upon the Party and then back to Emmanuel Goldstein and Eur/Eastasians. But these downfalls are erased when a finish of Big Brother as savior kicks in. The really sad thing is that The Hate is not an original thought of Orwell, but a dramatization and probably hyperbole of an actual a daily hate in Nazi Germany amongst families.

5. The Upper Room

Quote: “The fragment of rhyme that Mr. Charrington had taught him came back into his head, and he added half-nostalgically: ‘Oranges and lemons, say the bells of St. Clement’s!’ To his astonishment she capped the line: ‘You owe me three farthings, say the bells of St. Martin’s, When will you pay me? Say the bells of Old Bailey- I can’t remember how it goes on after that. But anyway I remember it ends up Here comes a candle to light you to bed, here comes a chopper to chop off your head!’” Part II, Page 147

This passage takes place in the upper room of Mr. Charrington’s antique shop. Now, if we’re going with the Bible’s antithesis of symbolism, this room has a whole lot of meaning because the upper room is where Jesus had his Last Supper and the first sign of imminent betrayal. Winston and Julia, while in the upper room, have the antithesis of the Last Supper because theirs is an unholy communion. But also, this is where Winston shares a sort of bond, or communion, with The Book. This sort of religious symbolism is compounded by the rhyme that Julia and Winston share which is in the passage above. This child’s rhyme has been haunting Winston for weeks and speaks of churches and the past, which is forbidden by The Party. Some foreshadowing also lurks in the rhyme, “Here comes a chopper to chop off your head,” because it is in this upper room where Julia and Winston are betrayed by one of the people they trusted: Mr. Charrington. In the same way Jesus picked out the person who was going to betray him in the upper room and was later betrayed by him. As far as the plot is concerned, the upper room is vital because it is where Julia and Winston exist as a semi-married couple. They hide away little stashes of real food and coffee and tea. It is where they bond the most. They exist as the bit of coral in the glass paperweight that is smashed the day of the arrest.

7. The Prole Woman

Quote: “Together they gazed down with a sort of fascination at the sturdy figure below. As he looked at the woman in her characteristic attitude, her thick arms reaching up for the line, her powerful marelike buttocks protruded, it struck him for the first time that she was beautiful.” Part II, Page 219

: Over and over, the phrase “The hope lies with the proles” is iterated. In this woman, who is always putting out laundry, basic humanity, simplicity, fecundity, and everything that is given to them but denied to members of the Outer Part especially is symbolized. This simplicity, though, is a mighty beast. The woman outside, with her strange beauty, could almost pass for a Mother Nature type figure as the mother of all. She gives birth to all and survives all storms. Winston is struck by her beauty, because if he is the last man in Oceania, she might be the last woman. She retained what the Party member women did not, freedom of open sexuality, and also what the prole women lost, dignity. And yet, she is ignorant. This scene is less significant to the actual plot and more significant to idea of the proles revolting and a symbol of the loss of the Ingsoc society. The hope lies with the proles.

8. 2+2=5

Quote: “‘How many fingers, Winston?’

‘Four.’

The needle went up to sixty.

‘How many fingers, Winston?’

‘Four! Four! What else can I say? Four!’

… ‘How many fingers, Winston?’

‘Four. I suppose there are four. I would see five if I could. I am trying to see five.’” Part III, Page 250-251

This is the sad point where Winston breaks down. O’Brien, of course, represents Ingsoc and Winston represents a last shred of humanity. O’Brien is trying to convince Winston that 2+2=5, not 4, merely because The Party says it is so. Encased in the elliptical clause is a great deal of pain and suffering and the changing of Winston’s mind. After the torture he admits he is trying to see 5 fingers. This scene is not only crucial to the plot because it is the first stage of Winston’s defeat, but also crucial to the Party’s Politics as well. The Party aims to get inside people’s heads, not just inside their lives and their bodies. The Party aims to be God, and this is just an extension of that belief.

Alright, now, that's not exactly all of them, but it's enough to refresh your memory I'm sure!