I like the fact that the narrator of Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man is unnamed; besides being fitting to the title and meaning of the work, this identity disconnect makes me really identify with his character- I feel like I am him rather than an interested spectator standing beside him. I most appreciate viewing the novel’s characters from the mind of the protagonist and considering how my opinion of the narrator affects my perception of the other characters. Because I’m still not too far into the novel, I haven’t formed a definite opinion on the narrator (whether I like him, trust his reliability, agree with him) – actually, I’ve gotten annoyed at his naiveté a couple of times. I’ve enjoyed forming an opinion about Mr. Norton while the narrator drives the rich man around campus, comparing the two characters, and considering how the two will interact with one another later in the novel.
Mr. Norton is a curious character to consider; when I first met him he seemed to be rather inconsequential- more of a force of power and money than an actual person. The narrator clearly felt similarly, as he seemed to look to Mr. Norton with admiring fear, though he infantilized the man like an idiot (which Mr. Norton very well may be). I’m not sure if that’s due to Ellison’s perception of race relations, if the narrator is a genius, if Mr. Norton is an imbecile, or some combination of these explanations. Whatever the reason, the narrator quietly disregards Mr. Norton’s ramblings and submissively answers his lunacy with, “I think I understand you better, now, sir” (Ellison 45). He is a perfect actor for his role and both are objects to each other. Throughout their disastrous trip, neither can relate to the other as an actual human being. Mr. Norton sees the narrator as the fruit of his labor, one of “three hundred teachers, seven hundred trained mechanics, eight hundred skilled farmers” (Ellison 45) that Mr. Norton has become through his philanthropy; the narrator, as I intimated already, views Mr. Norton only as a faceless supplier of money and his future.
They differ in personality, age, intelligence, and race- I think that these factors coincide so that the two are opposites; Mr. Norton foils the narrator by blustering arrogantly about his legacy as the narrator drifts mentally in silence. Besides this mental difference, they’ve been trained by society to dehumanize the others. Mr. Norton is taught to view the narrator as a product, and though he pretends to more liberal intentions, the narrator is more or less a talking cow to him. Conversely, the narrator is taught that white people like Mr. Norton are dangerous. He is encouraged by society to put on a show for the man so that he can get what he wants- in the narrator’s case, an education.
I think the two men, as foils, are going to be significant later in the novel. Even if Mr. Norton drifts out of the narrator’s life (and this is likely, since he appears to be quite flaky and unhealthy), someone like him will replace Mr. Norton. I’m sure that Mr. Norton will meet another young student like the narrator and see him as exactly the same person – or product.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Hamlet to Crucible
With all of the Books on File work and references in play and novel form to Christlike figures, I’m reminded heavily of a novel that I deeply enjoyed reading last year for AP English Literature. The Crucible, by Arthur Miller, is a statement about the nature of humankind and the faithfully unyielding manner in which it reasserts itself throughout history. This statement made about the unchanging nature of humankind is exemplified in Miller’s comparison of the hysterics during the Salem Witch Trials to the suspicion-riddled climate of 1950s America. Miller’s story is rich with rhetorical devices which not only add to a compelling reading experience but contribute heavily to his expression of theme.
Miller uses metaphors that appeal to the reader’s pathos and fully immerse him or her in the story’s action. As no doubt several of the villagers are aware and none will admit, the motive behind much of the corruption and accusation is greed for land or power. When expressing what she believes are the layers of corruption in the village, Mrs. Ann Putnam insists, ““There are wheels within wheels in this village, and fires within fires!” Here, she is alluding to wrongdoing, witchcraft; while supporting herself as an innocent. Both wheels and fire can be interpreted as being connected to the sinister practice of witchcraft, as wheels and other circular figures are powerful symbols in pagan lifestyles and fire is more stereotypically associated with evil. Mrs. Putnam uses these images to imply that witches inhabit the village of Salem. The wheels “within wheels” and fires “within fires,” as layers, symbolize the layers of complication of this issue such as the internal struggles for power among the villagers. Mrs. Putnam’s metaphoric declaration reveals her bitterly deep-seated desire to expose as a “witch” the woman she blames for the loss of her unborn children and her capability as an imperfect human to incite paranoia.
Arthur Miller also uses the device of kenning to arouse feelings of fear and illustrate Abigail’s determination to bring her revenge upon Elizabeth Proctor. Abigail craftily manipulates her friends into serving her purposes. Her power over them is first revealed in examining her harried whisper, “Let either of you breathe a word, or the edge of a word, about the other things, and I will come to you in the black of some terrible night and I will bring a pointy reckoning that will shudder you. And you know I can do it; I saw Indians smash my dear parents' heads on the pillow next to mine, and I have seen some reddish work done at night, and I can make you wish you had never seen the sun go down!” Colors in this quote serve as kennings; black represents the dark of night and reddish work is a kenning for violence. The crudity of these kennings compared to the words which they represent creates a more violent and terrifying tone when spoken by Abigail. The girl’s exploitive nature is manifested and one can easily draw comparisons between her self-serving behavior and that of other women in the village (Ann Putnam for example) or of politicians from the 1950s.
The Crucible demonstratea the massive power that negative ideological elements of humanity have gained, vengeance in particular. This is no more evident than in John Proctor’s indignant rant against the awakened hysterical attitude towards revenge, “I'll tell you what's walking Salem — vengeance is walking Salem. We are what we always were in Salem, but now the little crazy children are jangling the keys of the kingdom, and common vengeance writes the law!” In addition to biblical allusion to the “kingdom,” emphasizing Proctor’s belief that the inhabitants of Salem are interfering in matters far beyond their jurisdiction, Proctor personifies the force of vengeance.
Miller uses metaphors that appeal to the reader’s pathos and fully immerse him or her in the story’s action. As no doubt several of the villagers are aware and none will admit, the motive behind much of the corruption and accusation is greed for land or power. When expressing what she believes are the layers of corruption in the village, Mrs. Ann Putnam insists, ““There are wheels within wheels in this village, and fires within fires!” Here, she is alluding to wrongdoing, witchcraft; while supporting herself as an innocent. Both wheels and fire can be interpreted as being connected to the sinister practice of witchcraft, as wheels and other circular figures are powerful symbols in pagan lifestyles and fire is more stereotypically associated with evil. Mrs. Putnam uses these images to imply that witches inhabit the village of Salem. The wheels “within wheels” and fires “within fires,” as layers, symbolize the layers of complication of this issue such as the internal struggles for power among the villagers. Mrs. Putnam’s metaphoric declaration reveals her bitterly deep-seated desire to expose as a “witch” the woman she blames for the loss of her unborn children and her capability as an imperfect human to incite paranoia.
Arthur Miller also uses the device of kenning to arouse feelings of fear and illustrate Abigail’s determination to bring her revenge upon Elizabeth Proctor. Abigail craftily manipulates her friends into serving her purposes. Her power over them is first revealed in examining her harried whisper, “Let either of you breathe a word, or the edge of a word, about the other things, and I will come to you in the black of some terrible night and I will bring a pointy reckoning that will shudder you. And you know I can do it; I saw Indians smash my dear parents' heads on the pillow next to mine, and I have seen some reddish work done at night, and I can make you wish you had never seen the sun go down!” Colors in this quote serve as kennings; black represents the dark of night and reddish work is a kenning for violence. The crudity of these kennings compared to the words which they represent creates a more violent and terrifying tone when spoken by Abigail. The girl’s exploitive nature is manifested and one can easily draw comparisons between her self-serving behavior and that of other women in the village (Ann Putnam for example) or of politicians from the 1950s.
The Crucible demonstratea the massive power that negative ideological elements of humanity have gained, vengeance in particular. This is no more evident than in John Proctor’s indignant rant against the awakened hysterical attitude towards revenge, “I'll tell you what's walking Salem — vengeance is walking Salem. We are what we always were in Salem, but now the little crazy children are jangling the keys of the kingdom, and common vengeance writes the law!” In addition to biblical allusion to the “kingdom,” emphasizing Proctor’s belief that the inhabitants of Salem are interfering in matters far beyond their jurisdiction, Proctor personifies the force of vengeance.
Monday, February 8, 2010
A Classic
As I look back on novels that I've read throughout high school while searching for a book to use for Books on File, one novel in particular stands out as a possibility. Erich Remarque’s story of a young man caught in the trenches of World War I is one that lingers and haunts the mind of the reader. Already a classic novel, All Quiet on the Western Front is engrossing and well-written, employing elements such as figurative language and character development. The novel holds special meaning for readers across the world, who are deeply affected by its words. All Quiet on the Western Front’s enduring characteristics, the elements of vitality, craftsmanship, and significance, will ensure that it remains a classic novel.
All Quiet on the Western Front is a vital novel that has remained a classic for over sixty years. The novel is highly engrossing to new and old readers alike, which maintains its fan base. Paul’s experience has timeless characteristics, but it is also deeply rooted in the time of World War I. About the unchanging experience of war, Remarque writes, “It is as though formerly we were coins of different provinces; and now we are melted down and all bear the same stamp” (pg 272). This aptly sums up how war changes a person or a group; it unifies the minds of the soldiers until they are all essentially the same person. The timelessness of the novel appeals to people of all generations, proving that it will have the vitality to remain a popular story. Readers are brought back to the time in which Paul exists by the descriptions of how the soldiers and their families felt about the war. Paul displays his naïveté about the war, insisting, “But there are more lies told by the other side than by us… just think of those pamphlets the prisoners have on them, where it says that we eat Belgian children” (pg. 206). After reading this, one wants to learn more about Paul and what he thinks about the army. Interest in the time period in which World War I takes place will additionally secure the popularity of the novel. Readers’ fascination with Paul’s experiences in war will retain its strength for years to come.
Erich Remarque employs style and character techniques that lend texture to his novel. Similes are used often and across a wide range, including the horrors of war and the general way of life for Germans. Paul humorously compares himself and his comrades to sweating monkeys (pg. 232) as they move supplies throughout the camp, which lessens the tension between violent scenes of war and provides a much-needed respite from Paul’s usual gloom. Figurative language through personification and metaphors is also easily found, usually used to give a sense of the war as experienced by Paul. In one instance, Paul describes the feeling of being a soldier with, “We are insensible, dead men, who through some trick, some dreadful magic are still able to run and kill” (pg 116). This metaphor starkly demonstrates the reality of Paul’s surroundings and also contributes to the vitality of the novel. One of the most important elements of craftsmanship employed is the character development of Paul, as he transforms from a young and hopeful teenager to a cynical young man. Paul describes the change, sagely stating, “We are none of us more than twenty years old. But young? Youth? That is long ago. We are old folk” (pg 18). This quote is deeply affecting and well-written. Its short sentence length and lack of description only further emphasizes Paul’s point, that the war has stolen their childhoods. The excellent usage of craftsmanship in All Quiet on the Western Front without a doubt earns the novel a place among other classics.
The final characteristic of a classic that is exemplified in Remarque’s novel is significance. Though not all readers have endured war, Paul’s feelings of devastation and hopelessness are emotions that all can relate to. His insights about how the war has changed him and his comrades are shocking and sad coming from someone so young. When he compares the soldiers to dead men still able to run and kill, one’s heart breaks for the lost youth of the young men. Paul expresses his frustration with life as a soldier, ranting “All I do know is that this business about professions and studies and salaries and so on- it makes me sick, it is and always was disgusting. I don’t think I see anything at all, Albert” (pg 87). This quote shows how few choices Paul has and how hopeless it causes him to feel. Readers find their sympathy aligned with Paul’s feelings. Few have endured war like Paul, but the experience of reading his tragic story is still holds deep significance to the novel’s readers.
All Quiet on the Western Front is a vital novel that has remained a classic for over sixty years. The novel is highly engrossing to new and old readers alike, which maintains its fan base. Paul’s experience has timeless characteristics, but it is also deeply rooted in the time of World War I. About the unchanging experience of war, Remarque writes, “It is as though formerly we were coins of different provinces; and now we are melted down and all bear the same stamp” (pg 272). This aptly sums up how war changes a person or a group; it unifies the minds of the soldiers until they are all essentially the same person. The timelessness of the novel appeals to people of all generations, proving that it will have the vitality to remain a popular story. Readers are brought back to the time in which Paul exists by the descriptions of how the soldiers and their families felt about the war. Paul displays his naïveté about the war, insisting, “But there are more lies told by the other side than by us… just think of those pamphlets the prisoners have on them, where it says that we eat Belgian children” (pg. 206). After reading this, one wants to learn more about Paul and what he thinks about the army. Interest in the time period in which World War I takes place will additionally secure the popularity of the novel. Readers’ fascination with Paul’s experiences in war will retain its strength for years to come.
Erich Remarque employs style and character techniques that lend texture to his novel. Similes are used often and across a wide range, including the horrors of war and the general way of life for Germans. Paul humorously compares himself and his comrades to sweating monkeys (pg. 232) as they move supplies throughout the camp, which lessens the tension between violent scenes of war and provides a much-needed respite from Paul’s usual gloom. Figurative language through personification and metaphors is also easily found, usually used to give a sense of the war as experienced by Paul. In one instance, Paul describes the feeling of being a soldier with, “We are insensible, dead men, who through some trick, some dreadful magic are still able to run and kill” (pg 116). This metaphor starkly demonstrates the reality of Paul’s surroundings and also contributes to the vitality of the novel. One of the most important elements of craftsmanship employed is the character development of Paul, as he transforms from a young and hopeful teenager to a cynical young man. Paul describes the change, sagely stating, “We are none of us more than twenty years old. But young? Youth? That is long ago. We are old folk” (pg 18). This quote is deeply affecting and well-written. Its short sentence length and lack of description only further emphasizes Paul’s point, that the war has stolen their childhoods. The excellent usage of craftsmanship in All Quiet on the Western Front without a doubt earns the novel a place among other classics.
The final characteristic of a classic that is exemplified in Remarque’s novel is significance. Though not all readers have endured war, Paul’s feelings of devastation and hopelessness are emotions that all can relate to. His insights about how the war has changed him and his comrades are shocking and sad coming from someone so young. When he compares the soldiers to dead men still able to run and kill, one’s heart breaks for the lost youth of the young men. Paul expresses his frustration with life as a soldier, ranting “All I do know is that this business about professions and studies and salaries and so on- it makes me sick, it is and always was disgusting. I don’t think I see anything at all, Albert” (pg 87). This quote shows how few choices Paul has and how hopeless it causes him to feel. Readers find their sympathy aligned with Paul’s feelings. Few have endured war like Paul, but the experience of reading his tragic story is still holds deep significance to the novel’s readers.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Interpretations: Hamlet
I’ve never been a fan of plays; I just can’t see them in my mind as clearly as when I’m reading a good novel. Hamlet, though, is changing that for me. I think I’ve reached an age where I can comprehend and appreciate Shakespeare’s tricky and witty diction and engrossing character development. I enjoy pondering the question that is running through everyone’s mind as we trudge through Hamlet: is the title character really going crazy? Is the death of his father and loss of his lover enough to drive him mad? Also, in regards to the spooky ghost who speaks to Hamlet: Is it really King Hamlet or is it a demon or a figment of Hamlet’s imagination? If it’s the King, should we assume that he has noble intentions? What is his relationship with Hamlet? If it’s a demon, what is its ultimate goal and why choose Hamlet as a scion? If Hamlet’s imagining it, was he really crazy before the action of the story? Do the play’s events really just depict his sane façade dripping away? Or are the tragedies of his life wearing away his sanity? Is he just pretending to find out information about Claudius and/or Ophelia?
I just got carried away with questions stemming from one basic question! Any query a person might have about this play just leads to more and more questions- not frustrating, annoying questions that don’t have any possibility of an answer, but interesting and subjective questions. I can think about a scene or character development a certain way and draw a conclusion about that part that may affect the way I consider the entire play. Especially given the setting, a cavernous old castle, the difference between a private whispered conversation and an overheard murmur is slight. Several of the scenes involve Hamlet speaking to himself or Ophelia about his plans and motivations, and it’s interesting to me that his perceived intentions can be completely different, depending on whether he knows that someone is listening to him. We’ve watched segments from at least three different Hamlet productions (Kenneth Branaugh as Hamlet is my absolute favorite) in which scenes, themes, and characters were interpreted in vastly different ways.
For instance, Ophelia’s character in the BBC version is an innocent, caring girl- she’s weak and sensitive to Hamlet and clearly cares about him, although we doubt that they’ve been intimate. Ophelia in Mel Gibson’s Hamlet is played by the lovely and fantastic Helena Bonham Carter, an actress with a completely different aura about her. She’s also probably innocent, but she is interpreted as being more independent of Hamlet- she’s a character with her own motivations less than a pawn for her father. Kate Winslet as Ophelia across Kenneth Branaugh’s Hamlet is definitely not as innocent as the other two- she’s given Hamlet everything. When Hamlet confronts Ophelia in this version, the “sweet whispers” that came with Hamlets gifts take on another level of significance. I love it that *everything* can be debated and alternately interpreted when it comes to plays, Hamlet most of all.
I just got carried away with questions stemming from one basic question! Any query a person might have about this play just leads to more and more questions- not frustrating, annoying questions that don’t have any possibility of an answer, but interesting and subjective questions. I can think about a scene or character development a certain way and draw a conclusion about that part that may affect the way I consider the entire play. Especially given the setting, a cavernous old castle, the difference between a private whispered conversation and an overheard murmur is slight. Several of the scenes involve Hamlet speaking to himself or Ophelia about his plans and motivations, and it’s interesting to me that his perceived intentions can be completely different, depending on whether he knows that someone is listening to him. We’ve watched segments from at least three different Hamlet productions (Kenneth Branaugh as Hamlet is my absolute favorite) in which scenes, themes, and characters were interpreted in vastly different ways.
For instance, Ophelia’s character in the BBC version is an innocent, caring girl- she’s weak and sensitive to Hamlet and clearly cares about him, although we doubt that they’ve been intimate. Ophelia in Mel Gibson’s Hamlet is played by the lovely and fantastic Helena Bonham Carter, an actress with a completely different aura about her. She’s also probably innocent, but she is interpreted as being more independent of Hamlet- she’s a character with her own motivations less than a pawn for her father. Kate Winslet as Ophelia across Kenneth Branaugh’s Hamlet is definitely not as innocent as the other two- she’s given Hamlet everything. When Hamlet confronts Ophelia in this version, the “sweet whispers” that came with Hamlets gifts take on another level of significance. I love it that *everything* can be debated and alternately interpreted when it comes to plays, Hamlet most of all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)