King Lear, Part I

Alright, since I am short on time (of course) and I don't really want to think about it right now but I need to, I'm just going to post some stuff that my - ahem - colleagues and I wrote on our online discussion spot. Thing. Ok. Questions? Comments? You know where to put em!

Prompt: the use of "gods" in King Lear (this is mine. And yes. I'm pretty proud myself.)

Though at first you may not notice their ominous omnipresence, the
recurrent reference of certain "gods" in King Lear is present from the
first scene to the last. Usually it is King Lear who makes these
generally heathen references, though Edmund calls out to them in an
unseemly manner a few times. Not only are these references, especially
those made by King Lear, generally heathen, they are meant to be
unholy, evil, and perhaps barbarous. For example, when King Lear is
condemning and banishing his daughter, he says "For, by the sacred
radiance of the sun, the mysteries of Hecate and the night; by all the
operation of the orbs from whom we do exist and cease to be..." King
Lear 1.1.116-119. Whatever the religious atmosphere of almost any
Shakespearean audience, if references to sun worship, a Greek goddess
of Witchcraft and other shady practices, and worship of other heavenly
beings, it is generally considered to be a negative thing. King Lear
does not call on God, which is bad enough, but he calls on evil,
heathen gods. Edmund also has very negative connotations when he calls
on gods. He cries out "Now, gods, stand up for bastards!" King Lear
1.2.22. Since Lear and Edmund both have a very negative influence on
the play, we can assume that the gods are surely on the destructive
side of fate. France himself says, "Gods, gods! 'tis strange that from
their coldest neglect / My love should kindle to inflamed respect."
King Lear 1.1.282. The gods are surely on Lear's side.

The references or pleas to gods only happen in Lear's lines change
with Lear's character or state of mind. While he is questionably sane
and Cordelia is still in good graces with him, he makes no
exclamations to the gods. While he is disowning Cordelia and almost
through the duration of the play he makes many heathen references.
Whenever he finds Cordelia and a better state of mind, he stops all
unholy mentions and even uses God in the proper context: "As if we
were God's spies" King Lear 5.3.18. Edmund's problems with the gods
are quite different. Though he had called on the gods earlier and was
quite self assured in their graces, if his belief in the gods is
contrary to that of his belief in the heavens, that is, Edmund
betrayed the gods in his evil and was apparently in turn betrayed by
them, for Edgar says " thou art a traitor, False to thy gods, thy
brother, and thy father" King Lear 5.3.161. Soon after, "Edmund
falls."

So, are the gods simply playing the fickle gods of fate or are they
something to be called upon and even directed, as King Lear attempts
to in Scene II of Act III. When he addresses the storm he is obviously
calling on something which is akin to a god in the fact that it is a
heavenly, all-powerful, conscious being. He sends the vengeful spirit
of the storm against his daughters, for he is "a man more sinned
against than sinning." King Lear 3.2.59-60. He calls on the gods for
justice, though he did not originally give it.

So, in conclusion, the gods in King Lear are more of a symbol of evil
or a state of mind in a character than conscious gods. To quote Kent,
"Now, by Apollo, King, Thou swear'st thy gods in vain" 1.1.160-161.

The theme/motif of blindness.

King Lear himself displays the most obvious trait of blindness. In
the first act of the play, Lear misreads his daughters' intentions and
falls prey to false praises, leaving the truthful Cordelia an
outcast. The high-ranking King ought to have a decent grasp on
behavioral claims, as he is the ruler over his land and people, but he
fails to see through his daughters' words. Due to his inability to
see the truth, he s easily deceived by his two rotten daughters. He
blindly distributes his land to Goneril and Regan, neglecting
Cordelia's honest claim, and banishes Cordelia from his sanctified
presence. If Lear had seen the ulterior motives of the two evil
daughters, then maybe he would have commended Cordelia and avoided
such a great string of tragedies that take place throughout the
story. He only realizes for good what his three daughters really wish
to fulfill at the end of the story, when it is all too late. Lear's
blindness ultimately costs him his life.

Albany also shows signs of blindness. His love for Goneril also
breeds trouble. In his deep love for Goneril, Albany fails to see
that her "love" for him is but a guise for her secret desire for
Edmund. Albany has a hard time accepting Goneril's harsh treatment of
her father Lear, but through a largely one-sided bond of love, he
stays by her side through it all. It isn't until Edgar reveals the
note that contains Goneril's devious plot that Albany realizes his
devotion is meaningless, and that he had better straighten up if he is
to live and thwart Goneril and Edmund's evil schemes.

The most literal example of blindness is Gloucester. As mentioned
above, Gloucester's eyes are plucked out in Act three by Cornwall and
Regan. Gloucester was "blind" much before this tragic incident,
though. Like Lear, Gloucester failed to recognize his offspring's
evil intentions. He mixed up Edgar's innate goodness, and Edmund's
natural evil. This is due in large part to Edmund's crafty letter
framing Edgar. Convinced that Edgar, the legitimate and closest son
to the title of Earl, wants to kill him, Gloucester pits his men
against an innocent Edgar, causing him panic and torment. The painful
irony of Gloucester's blindness is that he only begins to "see" after
his physical, "working" eyes are stripped from his face. While
intact, Gloucester is blind to Edmund's horrid plans of overthrowing
him. After he is truly blinded, however, he sees that he has
misconstrued the situation and that Edgar is indeed the legitimate son
who loved him and continued to care for him through the thick and
thin.

"Filial Ingratitude!"(which always sounded like a brand name or line or something like that to me)

While the actions of Cordelia are justifiable, the actions of Goneril
and Regan arenot up to par with what a decent daughter should do.
Cordelia is forced to make a difficult decision at the beginning of
the play when her father asks her to express her love for him, she can
lie and exagerate her love as her sisters have done or she can be
honest and give her father the hard to hear truth. Cordelia may have
made a better choice in her choice of words to her father, but the
fact of the matter is that she gave him the truth and was able to
attempt to help him in the end because of her choice. Had Cordelia
chosen to lie to her father she would have most likely married
Burgundy because his desire for her dowry would have kept his intrest
in her alive and, when Lear speaks to Burgundy and France, Burgundy
appears to be the front runner in the race for Cordelia because Lear
addresses him first and gives him the first right of refusal. If
Cordelia had married Burgundy he would have had no need to help the
father of the woman he did not love because he would have already
recieved all of the blessing available from Lear. Because Cordelia
chose to be, "So young, my Lord, and true," the entire play is set in
motion; had Cordelia been a lesser person, there would be no reason
for the play.

Goneril and Reagan are guilty of most of the horrible offences in the
play. The only excuse that an be made for these two daughters is when
they are frustrated with the number of soldiers their father keeps
but, when they originally took over the kingdom they agreed to take on
the burden of the soldiers so, their argument is lost here. Goneril
and Regan are the chief evildoers of the play, they commit and attemp
murder, they blind a man, they take advantage of the figurative
blindness of their father, they attempt adultery, they lie, steal, and
many more things. The behavior of Regan and Goneril is horrid beyond
belief. The only action Goneril makes that is decent is when she
marries Albany and the only reason this is excusable is because he
challenges her and her evil sister at the end of the play. The lies
of these two daughters establish the conflict of the play and the lies
seem to have been planned for a while so that the daughters will
profit from the condition of their father. When the daughters talk
after the divison of the kingdom they seem to posses a sense of
superiority over their father which they carry into the rest of the
play, their beliefs in Lear's senility channel their drive to
overthrow his control over the kingdom and they show their true colors
from this point on.

Parallel stories - Lear and....?

Noble friend and in a tussle with his offspring himself, the life of
Gloucester most certainly parallels that of King Lear's. Shakespeare
doubly places misjudgment into both of these characters. Each of them
fails to recognize the senile charms of their respective children who
enrapture their fathers in falsity. Evidently, this misjudgment is
the sole ruin of each of the characters. Needless to say, they go
down together.
Illegitimacy is a key word which should not go unnoticed. Let us not
be blind like Lear. Although Goneril and Regan were assumed to be the
rightful beneficiaries of Lear's land, lowly Cordelia was the actual
legitimate daughter, truthful to the welfare of her father. On the
other hand and most accurately seen, Edgar is duped by the
illegitimate Edmund:

"Legitimate Edgar, I must have your land.
Our father’s love is to the bastard Edmund
As to the legitimate. Fine word—“legitimate”!
Well, my legitimate, if this letter speed,
And my invention thrive, Edmund the base
Shall top the legitimate. I grow; I prosper.
Now, gods, stand up for bastards!"

Edmund delivers this soliloquy (1.2.1–22) just before he reveals to
Gloucester that Edgar the legitimate is plotting against his life. In
both cases truth is outlasted by a harbored falsehood.
Interestingly, when Lear flees out into the storm, Gloucester
follows. This can symbolically represent the fact that these two both
have run into the same situation. Both characters reduce themselves
in despairing, and humorous, fashion. They fall to a state teetering
on the edge of insanity. But, noticeably, they are both aided by men
in disguise who forfeit any chances of the two from falling completely
psychopathic. Lear is aided by Kent and Gloucester is led by Edgar.
Gloucester parallels Lear the most in this way because they have both
become incapable to live without a constant hand to gild them in the
right direction. It is not until the end until they realize that
their mistakes have proven to costly and therefore they both must
suffer consequences.

The Motif of Nothing

“Nothing” being the empty word that it is can be filled with meaning
depending on how or in what context it is used. The characters in
“King Lear” make use of this vacant word infusing it with their own
purposes. This makes the bread-crumb trail of “nothing” throughout
“King Lear” rather exciting.

To Cordelia “nothing” meant love. It was not that she did not love her
father; she simply could not describe her love. Her love was more than
words. It had been translated into action, and Cordelia thought Lear
knew this. So when asked to describe her love in words, “nothing” was
all that came out of Cordelia’s mouth. Cordelia’s speechless love is
made evident in Act V when she asks France to intercede for her insane
father. Cordelia’s love is nothing by way of words, but everything in
action.

Edmund’s “nothing” is a stark contrast to Cordelia’s. Edmund’s first
mention of nothing is about the letter he has “received” from “Edgar”
as he quickly dismisses to Gloucester as “nothing.” Gloucester at
first sees that this letter is truly something saying, “The quality of
nothing hath not such need to hide itself;” however, Gloucester fails
to realizes that this “nothing” is a conspiracy—an act of unlove
against him and his family. “Nothing” to Edmund is conspiracy and
betrayal. Later Edmund asks Edgar, “Have you nothing said upon his
party ‘gainst the Duke of Albany?” making sure that his evil
intentions stay hidden. Gloucester up in arms about the whole debacle
confides his relations with Lear to Edmund and pleads with him to say
nothing of it. Of course, Edmund’s lust for power spurs him on to turn
in his own father to Cornwall establishing himself as Earl of
Gloucester.

Poor Edgar, because of Edmund’s evil schemes, views himself as
“nothing.” While Edmund makes a scene about his bastardizing,
illegitimacy and his low name, Edgar is more accepting of his new
identity as a beggar, as nothing. As he makes his plan to become this
new identity as ole Tom he proclaims, “Edgar I nothing am” meaning
that his life as Edgar is worth less than his life as Poor Tom. Later
when Edgar reveals himself to his father, he says, “in nothing am I
changed/But in my garments.” In this use of “nothing” Edgar is still
referencing himself; however, he is now the true “nothing” (not the
scheming illegitimate “nothing”) that Gloucester really loves.

Lear’s Fool has several views on nothing as well he should. Making fun
of the Fool, Kent remarks that the Fool’s interjections are “nothing.”
However, the Fool replies saying that his “nothing” is just a bit of
wisdom that came for free so “can you make no use of nothing?” The
Fool’s next reference to “nothing” is quite contrasting to the first.
Referring to Lear the Fool says that the king has foolishly split up
his kingdom leaving himself no brains or nothing in the middle.
“Nothing” is foolishness. Finally, talking to Lear again the Fool
blatantly says, “I am a fool, thou art nothing.” This reference to
nothing again emphasizes Lear’s stupidity, but it also insults his
resulting loss of power. The Fool says he’d rather be the fool than be
in Lear’s lowly position.

Throughout the play Lear continues to see “nothing” as nothing. First
talking to Cordelia Lear says, “Nothing can come of nothing.” Later in
response to his Fool’s wisdom and Kent’s skepticism Lear replies,
“Nothing can be made of nothing.” Lear’s blindness, however, prevents
him from seeing past the surface of the empty vessel that is
“nothing.” He can’t see Cordelia’s “nothing” filled with love or the
Fool’s “nothing” filled with wisdom and honesty. Lear at one point
amidst the storm says, “I will say nothing” and later asks himself
“couldst thou save nothing?” At this point Lear is realizing his true
identity as that of “nothing.” He is blind and mad, yet he is able to
realize that he is empty. Soon there will be nothing left.

The Storm - Symbol, Climax, Perfect.

Lear realizes that he is no control over anything anymore. His life
is in the hands of the gods, his daughters, or any man. The storm
symbolizes the loss of control and power, but it also says that
nothing is as it seems. There is always two sides to everything.
Most of the time there is a good and a bad side.

Lear first realizes that he is losing control of his court when
Cordelia does not put her pride aside and proclaim undying love to
Lear like her sisters. Cordelia is his favorite daughter. He expects
her to please him now as she has always done, but she does not.
Instead of being his sweet little Cordelia she is almost hard in her
response to proclaim her love for Lear. Cordelia says, "Nothing".
Lear later replies, "So young and so untender?" Cordelia ends that
part of the conversation with, "So young, my lord, and true" (1.1
98,118-119) Lear is so taken aback that he disowns Cordelia. He
transforms from a sweet father to one that will "spit, fire! and
Sprout, rain!"

The next loss of control is between a father and his child again.
This time it is between Gloucester and Edmund. Edmund easily
convinces Gloucester that Edgar was plotting his death because he
wanted his inheritance now. Edmund was then seen as the best son.
His illegitamicy was forgotten because of the unselfish way that he
was helping his father. Gloucester proclaims, "I will proclaim it
That he which finds him shall deserve our thanks, Bringing the
murderous coward to the stake; He that conceals him, death" and "And
of my land, Loyal and natural boy, I'll work the means To make thee
capable" (2.1 70-74,97-99) Gloucester did not know that when he gave
Edmund this land and respect that he was really signing over his life
along with all his possessions

The ultimate way the storm was illustrated was when Goneril and Regan
turned their backs on Lear. They refused to house him and his men,
and then they just kicked him out into the storm. Lear had no control
or power over them anymore. The sisters did not love let alone
respect Lear anymore. This upset Lear so much that he called on the
gods to curse his daughters. Lear cries out, "You heavens, give me
that patience, patience I need! You see me here, you gods, a poor old
man As full of grief as age, wretched in both. if it be you thats
stirs these daughters' hearts Against their father, fool me not so
much To bear it tamely." (2.4 313-318) Lear was completely baffled
because these were not the women just a few days earlier that
proclaimed their unwavering full love for him. Lear is at a loss.

Another person that is at a loss is Albany. He knows that Goneril is
not the best kind of person, but does not argue with her when she
harshly tells Lear he can not house his company of men at their
house. Albany probably had grown to expect and accept these strong
words and actions from Goneril, but he never expected her to plot his
death. He definitely was not going to accept it either. He had
completely lost control of his wife. First of all she was sending
secret letter plotting his death in Act IV, but her plan gets foiled
when Edgar kills Oswald and delivers the letter meant for Edmund to
Albany. He then decided to confront her and Edmund about their plot
to end his life. Albany says, "Edmund, I arrest thee On capital
treason; and, in {thine attraint,} This gilded serpent.--For your
claim, fair {sister,} I bar it in the interest of my wife. 'Tis she
is subcontracted to this lord, And I, her husband, contradict your
banns. If you will marry, make your loves to me. My lady is
bespoke" (5.3 98-106)

Albany is the only person that regains his control after losing it.
He was not being defeated with a fight which he won. The storms that
were in all the characters lives really affected them for the worst.
None of them were the same. Lear and Gloucester died while Albany
lost a wife. The storm brought not a "sweet sway", but it did "spit,
fire! and Sprout rain!" in every life it touched

Besides mine, I have left the authors anonymous. If you would like to know an author or you think no one will care, I'll post a list in order of appearance. Can I just say, I love my AP English class? I think we're pretty awesome.

Well, it has been a while, hasn't it?

Mid summer, it seems, I forgot to post on any blog at all. But here it is, a resurrection, which is very apropos regarding the weekend. I will tell the truth, that I turned to this blog to express my feelings, which are very downhearted at the moment, and because I just watched one of my favorite movies which concerns writing and books. Plus, I have a need to write in a place where very few will actually read it. And I happen to trust the two I know have found it if they ever actually come back to it again.

The thing is, I won't pour out my feelings right now. 'Cause I went to my book blog. And what is on a book blog? Books - which let you snuggle up and hide away from the world. Anyhow, I'll try to write about real literature and I'll probably try to finish up a couple of posts I started last summer. By the way, I wrote at the very beginning about my book list. Well, thanks to Senior Year AP English, that book list is at 39, which makes me crazy to finish A Tale of Two Cities. If you know anything about that book, or for any matter Charles Dickens, you know that it isn't a book you rush through. But I am starting to remember the beautiful, precise diction and the amazing characterization, for Dickens has no fear of extremely odd, yet extremely real, characters. My favorites are the dirty ones, incidentally.

Pride and Prejudice and ... Zombies?

Yes. Its' true. It's a book. And I originally borrowed it from my Youth Minister who is a Zombie nerd. And then all the lit nerds in my family read it. We liked it much better, and so he let me permanently borrow it. It's a neat deal.

The sad thing is about this book is that it doesn't exactly fit into a category,which is appealing and yet detrimental. Why? Because the people like my youth minister say "Too much Pride and Prejudice and not enough Zombies." Whereas people like me, my sister, and my mother say "Too many zombies, not enough Pride and Prejudice!" And so it appeals and yet is not completely satisfactory.

Though not one of my favorite books, it is very, very clever. It is entertaining to the masses because of the humorous and light references to Zombie and Zombie-slaying, but to the P&P lover it has much more depth. Now, keep in mind that the real P&P lover- which includes at least 3/4 of all women plus a few men, those people who read it at least once every year, if not more - know exactly what happens in the book. They can practically mouth along with Mary as she spits out her prudish, erudite sayings. They roll their eyes at Mrs. Bennet's ramblings. They look forward to the occasional sarcastic, yet loving, remarks by Mr. Bennet. They know exactly when and how Lizzy will feel as she gazes upon Pemberly. They swell with pride as Lizzy announces "What are men to rocks and mountains!" They know everything that happens in the book. Which makes a remake so much more appealing because they know what is going to happen, they just don't know how, or if the new author will dare to change anything else.

Much to my dismay, Seth Grahame-Smith did do several things I did not like, which I suppose is inevitable. He added a couple of crude, I repeat, crude jokes into *gasp* Jane Austen literature. How could he??? Then, I suppose it is modern America. He made Mrs. Bennet much worse than the just silly fool she is and made Mr. Bennet (which is possibly what I got angriest about) a man who did not love anyone in his family except for perhaps Elizabeth and cheated on his wife. Speaking of abusing your "literary licence"....

But I did have a couple of favorite places in the book. For example, the cleverness of it all. The verbal duel between Elizabeth and Lady Catherine DeBourgh was added to with a physical duel which showed off their mad ninja skills in a dojo. Also, there was a scene which would have been a little weird if you hadn't memorized P&P from top to bottom because the whole scene was a setup for one line in which Fitzgerald praises Elizabeth's fingers. In the original work, he is referring to her at the piano. In the new version, he is praising her ability to parade up and down the room while walking on her fingers.

It is really a lovely book and writing about it is making me want to read it again after a 6-8 month respite. Mostly because I love Pride and Prejudice so much, though. Just to cap off, let me give you some of my favorite quotes from the real thing just because I can. :)

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.

I could easily forgive his pride, if he had not mortified mine.

If a woman is partial to a man, and does not endeavour to conceal it, he must find it out. Amen, sister!

But no sooner had he made it clear to himself and his friends that she hardly had a good feature in her face, than he began to find it was rendered uncommonly intelligent by the beautiful expression of her dark eyes. Haha! Got you Darcy! By a pair of fine eyes!

A lady's imagination is very rapid; it jumps from admiration to love, from love to matrimony, in a moment.

Good opinion once lost, is lost forever.

Darcy had never been so bewitched by any woman as he was by her. He really believed, that were it not for the inferiority of her connections, he should be in some danger. Hmm....is that pride? Or prejudice?

Is not general incivility the very essence of love?

Adieu to disappointment and spleen. What are men to rocks and mountains?

Stupid men are the only ones worth knowing after all.

Neither duty, nor honour, nor gratitude ... have any possible claim on me.

I cannot fix on the hour, or the look, or the words, which laid the foundation. It is too long ago. I was in the middle before I knew that I had begun.

Now that I'm done, I feel like reading the real version!

Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus

Firstly, the movies and such stemming from this semi-original concept are very misleading. There is no Igor or dank, dark, family castle in Germany where a lab is hidden by a trap door. Secondly, why would you purposely construct a monster that is clearly a monster and then shudder and flee? But this is only one of the many questions that arise from reading Mary Shelley's crowning acheivement. (By the way, she was only 19 when she wrote it and it arose from a friendly competition to make the best ghost story.) The innate nature of man, the relationship of the created to its creator and the nature of ... nature are all addressed in this book. The praise and notoriety this book receives is justly given, especially as its status as the pinnacle of gothic novels and the cornerstone of science fiction.

Okay, what's with this novel? Is it just a fun little horror novel about a genius who shakes his fist at God by creating life whose 'new life' comes back to haunt him? As we already clarified: No. What has been said about Frankenstein, the fact that it was partially based on Shelley's life, seems plausible. So the number of siblings and their deaths and even Clerval seem to come from Mary Shelley herself. But of course, the primary form of diverting literature at that time was grisly gothic novels. So perhaps the morbidness came from there. Some people are surprised that a 19 year old could come up with something so...horrible or morbid. But she was caught up on the literature, she was friends or acquaintances with most of the novelists themselves through her father, and how many people do you see today who are goth or emo or trying to sport their dark side?

Question: As we have surmised, the whole life bestowing process eventually gives rise to a monster. Then who's to blame? Is it Dr. Frankenstein or the monster's fault? This kind of brings us to the question of the innate nature of man: innately good, original sin, or tabula rasa? My theory (at least, according to the book): Either tabula rasa or innately good. So I believe the corruption of the Creature is Frankenstein's fault primarily. Of course, the beloved french family didn't help either. But let's review the points against Frankenstein.

1. The first act of humanity the creature saw was betrayal, whether he recognized it or not, when Frankenstein ran out on him.

2. Frankenstein was afraid and ran out on him and didn't come back. At least for a while. So, if Frankenstein thought the Creature was dangerous, why did he allow him to escape, or leave, when he might to damage to fill-in-the-blank. I mean, if you don't take charge for yourself, at least do it for person or persons unknown.

3. What did the creature want? Love. Well, that was easy. Don't we all want to be loved by our creator? What did Frank. not give the Creature? Love. Well, that was easy. Frankenstein was the reason the Monster sought revenge on his brother, their devoted servant/caretaker, his wife/sister, his father, his dearest friend, and, eventually, him.

4. Frank. never reasoned with the monster properly or listened to his reasoning. I mean, take the whole instance of the monster's bride. (Or corpse bride, if you like.)

5. I just don't like Frankenstein, let's be honest. It seems like he deserves the ruination. He runs for the whole book, except when it's too late. Oh, and he leaves his one remaining relative behind in Geneva. We think.

6. Imago Dei. It means image of God. Since Frankenstein is the god, or the creator, in this instance, I believe that he created The Creature in his image. Not his external image, but his internal image. This is perhaps the weakest argument of them all but perhaps the most plausible, in my eyes.

Word Alert! Vocabulary: Frame story. A frame story is a story within a story. Frankenstein begins on a book in the arctic where the captain is pursuing arctic knowledge. He sees a stranded man (Dr. Frankenstein) and invites to come aboard. After a few days time he compels him to tell his horrid story - (Place Frankenstein story here)- "...and that is why I, Dr. Victor Frankenstein, am in the frozen, barren wastelands." (not direct quote) Story wraps up on board the boat, and captain, who learns his lesson about the dangerousness of knowledge, turns toward home. Do you see the frame?

Naturally Nature. Mary Shelley was surrounded by Romanticists (her father, her lover/husband, and Lord Byron, a friend) and so was influenced by them greatly. I mean, she snatched her husbands heart (possibly his liver, actually) out of his funeral pyre, for Pete's sake' and kept it between the pages of a book before burying it in Italy. One great theme of Romantacism? Nature. Frankenstein seeks consolation from nature and the Monster is soothed by the moon. Shelley uses wonderful description when she speaks of the mountains and valleys and lakes. From Frankenstein's narrative: "[Scenes from nature] elevated me from all littleness of feeling, and although they did not remove my grief, they subdued and tranquillized it."

Then again..."Where had [those feelings] fled when the next morning I awoke?...[The mountain] is a scene terrifically desolate. In a thousand spots the traces of the winter avalanche may be perceived, where trees lie broken and strewed on the ground, some entirely destroyed, others bent, leaning up on the jutting rocks of the mountain."And then the lake scene where Frank. crosses the clear water with his newlywed and then crosses it a day later when she is dead. He becomes disturbed by the serenity and unmutability of nature when he realized that nothing here in the water has changed, his dead wife does not disrupt the natural world.

(Ok, so I haven't really finished. It's what I wrote last summer. And I had to erase one and a half sentences about dual natures and stuff. But it's really not bad, as it is.)

Oh, Christie, Christie.

Everyone has a guilty pleasure. Mine is Agatha Christie.Oh! The mysteries are captivating as the characters are splendid. I recently read The Man in the Brown Suit. Again. I think this might have been the fourth or fifth time at least. A hint for those of you who aren't experienced enough to know: the mysteries that don't involve Poirot or Marple are just as good or better than those that do. The espionage novels are stellar, too. The Man in the Brown Suit is one of Agatha Christie's earliest novels (and one of her best). Girls especially will identify with the spunky girl hero and swoon with the discovery of...well...you'll find out who! True, there are a couple of dead bodies, but the story is mainly about the search for the leader of a major crime ring, and a diamond theft!

Oh, I love Christie, and if you are in my area, you are welcome to Christie books by the handful if you know me. Oh, if you are new to Christie, may I suggest: The ABC Murders, Man in the Brown Suit, The Secret Adversary, Ten Little Indians, Murder on the Orient Express, and almost any other. Just contact me and ask me how good it is, and I'll tell you! : )

How to Read Literature Like a Professor

The perfect book for this blog! How to Read Literature Like a Professor by Thomas C. Foster is a must-read for all who enjoy getting into books and wallowing in the plot while also pondering what it could really mean. Really, this book sits beside Strunk and White on the bookshelf, for while Strunk and White expounds on the grammar of the English language, How to Read Literature formats you with the grammar of the novella, short story, novella, or even poem. Even though it talks about something a college student or thereabouts needs for his studies, this book still won't go over too many people's heads. As long as you have read a book not taken out of the Young Adults section of the library, or at least can imagine one, this book will be interesting and understandable.

In his book, Foster explores such catagories as the influences of modern literature (Shakespeare, the Bible, folklore, and Greek mythology), the symbolism behind important acts (quests, communion, sex, violence, baptism), the reason behind the setting (season, climate, geography, rain, snow), the meaning behind a character's condition (heart disease, cancer, birthmarks, scars, death, and tuberculosis, endlessly tuberculosis), and how the social/political condition surrounding the author can provide proper undertone the the story.

I won't ramble on about this wonderful book. But it is wonderful. He talks about tons of books to provide basis and substance to his topics, but Never fear! because even if you haven't read the work he references, he sufficiently explains its relevance without giving away too much of the story. Even he gives away the whole story, I found that he in no way dampened my desire to read the work. In one instance, I had never heard of the short story by Marquez that he talked about, but it sounded to intriguing that I wanted to pick it up right away.

If you liked this book, or just really interested in how the English language works, another basic in reading and writing is The Elements of Style, by Stunk and White.

One Hundred Years of Solitude III

I promise this is the last one! I'm just gonna give you some quotes to chew on!

The first one:
“Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, Colonel Aureliano Buendia was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to discover ice.”
Note: I rather like this guy's writing style. He does this all the time, he mentions an incident that will happen, refers to it every 20-30 pages or so, but doesn't explain it for 100 or so pages. It's rather intriguing.

“She would put handfuls of earth in her pockets, and ate them in small bits without being seen…”
Told you. She eats dirt.

“Although she was already a hundred years old and on the point of going blind from cataracts, she still had her physical dynamism, her integrity of character, and her mental balance intact.”
Referring to Ursula. Amazing character.

“ ‘Look at the mess we’ve got ourselves into,’ Colonel Aureliano Buendia said at that time, ‘just because we invited a gringo to eat some bananas.’”
Haha. Love this guy.

“ ‘Sit down,’ she told her. ‘I don’t need cards to tell the future of a Buendia.’ Meme did not know and never would that the centenarian witch was her great-grandmother.”
“ ‘Just like Aureliano,’ Ursula exclaimed. ‘It’s as if the world were repeating itself.’”

“It had never occurred to him until then to think that literature was the best plaything that had ever been invented to make fun of people.”

“Tormented by the certainty that he was his wife’s brother, Aureliano ran out to the parish house to search through the moldy and moth-eaten archives for some clue to his parentage.”
Turns out, she's his aunt. Now think that through.

And finally, the last quote, still amazing:
“Aureliano Babilonia would finish deciphering the parchments, and that everything written on them was unrepeatable since time immemorial and forever more, because races condemned to one hundred years of solitude did not have a second opportunity on earth.”

Awesome. Now read it.