In all three plays, there is a common theme among the female characters; all of them are seen as inferior to the men.
In Blood Wedding, Lorca tags the bride character as "bride", not giving her a real name. However, Lorca does give the man the bride is in love with, his name is Leonardo. This creates a sense of inferiority towards the woman character because she is not actually given a name, just a title. And while she is just given a title, Leonardo is given an actual name, giving the impression that he is superior to the female character.
In The Wild Duck, Ibsen creates the character Gina, who is Hjalmar's wife. She is seen as inferior because she is the one who makes food for the family, and acts the role of a servant for Hjalmar. To furthermore support this, the character Mrs. Sorby is the house-keeper for Old Ekdal. Again, this being a servant position creates a sense of inferiority for the women, and how they are not treated with as much power as the men.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Journal #1: Blood Wedding
When reading the first acts of both The Wild Duck and Blood Wedding, there were many similarities between the two. One of the main similarities that I found was that they both included the word "knife". Ibsen and Lorka uses the knife in both Blood Wedding and The Wild Duck as a symbol for authority, as well as foreshadow future events that may occur in the story. Although in The Wild Duck, Ibsen does not use the knife to foreshadow anything, the knife is used to show authority. For example, in both passages, the knife is mentioned in an almost demanding way. In act one of The Wild Duck, Ibsen writes, "In from the dining room come laughter and the hum of many voices in conversation; a knife clinks upon a glass; silence; a toast is made" (119). In this context, the knife is used to catch the attention of the party members, and to silence them in order for a speech. This gives the one holding the knife power because he/she is silencing everyone, making them pay attention to him/her. And in Blood Wedding Lorka writes,
Mother
Son, your breakfast!
Bridegroom
Never mind. I'll eat some grapes. Give me the knife.
The bridegroom says this in a demanding tone. He rejects his mother's request and demands for the knife in return. This creates a demanding tone which furthermore implies that he is in control, and he feels in control over his mother. He does not have to listen to her word. So, the knife represents his authority over her.
Mother
Son, your breakfast!
Bridegroom
Never mind. I'll eat some grapes. Give me the knife.
The bridegroom says this in a demanding tone. He rejects his mother's request and demands for the knife in return. This creates a demanding tone which furthermore implies that he is in control, and he feels in control over his mother. He does not have to listen to her word. So, the knife represents his authority over her.
Comments
This idea of having both a private/public life is a very interesting. I had not picked up on how Ibsen and Sophocles include this. I would look at this a bit more and try to develop an overall theme. Good work bud! (Tanner, Wild Duck #1)
Wow great poem Mr. Quach! You did an excellent job at connecting Oedipus with his complications and his ultimate failure. Also, I thought the motif of "darkness" was great because it set the negative tone which paralleled the corruption of Oedipus. Lastly, creative title. Well done Quach, keep it up! (Quach, Oedipus #3)
Great job with the analysis! However, I would argue that style does have a very important role in the two plays. The writers style in a way creates the plot itself. For example, both plays have tons of foreshadowing, and through this device both the writers can establish a stronger plot. I would say that the style develops more main themes than the plot, but great job! I enjoyed reading it! (Tania, Wild Duck #4)
Wow great poem Mr. Quach! You did an excellent job at connecting Oedipus with his complications and his ultimate failure. Also, I thought the motif of "darkness" was great because it set the negative tone which paralleled the corruption of Oedipus. Lastly, creative title. Well done Quach, keep it up! (Quach, Oedipus #3)
Great job with the analysis! However, I would argue that style does have a very important role in the two plays. The writers style in a way creates the plot itself. For example, both plays have tons of foreshadowing, and through this device both the writers can establish a stronger plot. I would say that the style develops more main themes than the plot, but great job! I enjoyed reading it! (Tania, Wild Duck #4)
Monday, May 23, 2011
Journal #3: The Wild Duck
Hedvig
Dear diary,
Life is great here with my family. But I am angry at the fact that I am not attending school. Although my mother teaches me a lot of things, mostly about economics, I want to learn more. This is because I am such a curious person, I believe that a proper education would solve the many questions that I have about the world. Also, I would like to have time to explore the world. I feel that I am so confined to this household and my family that I do not have time for myself. If I could go outside and explore what is on the outside of my normal life, I feel that I would be more entertained. Not that I do not like that I am always with my family, I do not mind that at all. It is just that I feel like exploring. I want to be given a chance to do something that my mother and father do not tell me to do. Of course I do not mean any trouble though.
My wild duck is so fascinating! It is very mysterious and I feel like it is detached from all of its surroundings. I mean, it is the only duck in the attic. There are other birds in there as well, but they are not the same, I almost feel bad for the poor duck. Its wing is badly hurt, and it was picked up by a dog's teeth, that is why I feel so bad. But it is kinda like me, and that is why I love it so much. It seems to be full of curiosity like me, and it has an interesting look to it. Well, obviously because it was harmed so badly. But what astonishes me the most is the fact that it is still alive after all of that!
Dear diary,
Life is great here with my family. But I am angry at the fact that I am not attending school. Although my mother teaches me a lot of things, mostly about economics, I want to learn more. This is because I am such a curious person, I believe that a proper education would solve the many questions that I have about the world. Also, I would like to have time to explore the world. I feel that I am so confined to this household and my family that I do not have time for myself. If I could go outside and explore what is on the outside of my normal life, I feel that I would be more entertained. Not that I do not like that I am always with my family, I do not mind that at all. It is just that I feel like exploring. I want to be given a chance to do something that my mother and father do not tell me to do. Of course I do not mean any trouble though.
My wild duck is so fascinating! It is very mysterious and I feel like it is detached from all of its surroundings. I mean, it is the only duck in the attic. There are other birds in there as well, but they are not the same, I almost feel bad for the poor duck. Its wing is badly hurt, and it was picked up by a dog's teeth, that is why I feel so bad. But it is kinda like me, and that is why I love it so much. It seems to be full of curiosity like me, and it has an interesting look to it. Well, obviously because it was harmed so badly. But what astonishes me the most is the fact that it is still alive after all of that!
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Journal #2: The Wild Duck
Out of the books that I have read, I have found that the moments of intensity differ in the way that author portrays it. Since freshman year, I have read all different genres of books, thus I almost can expect how the author will portray the climax or other intense parts of the book. However, plays and novels are surprisingly similar in the ways that the intense moments are portrayed.
Take Oedipus the King for example. The climax of this play is obviously when Sophocles describes Oedipus blinding himself. Like most novels, he builds up suspense to heighten the intense moments to grab the readers attention. Throughout the whole play, Sophocles foreshadows a tragic ending, but the reader obviously does not know what it is. This is very common in plays, especially tragedies, because that is exactly what they are aimed to do at an audience. In The Stranger, Camus does this as well. Camus builds up suspense right before Mersault kills the Arab by using the sun. However, Camus does not foreshadow to the climax as much as play writers do in their works. However what differs the two is when the suspense kicks in. In The Stranger, for example, Camus creates suspense right before he kills the Arab, while in Oedipus the King, Sophocles creates suspense from the beginning of the play when Oedipus wants to discover the truth behind who killed Laius. I think that play writers do a better job at creating this suspense, and intense moments because they design it for an actual audience, rather than a reader. Having a gradual increase in suspense starting from the beginning of a play sets the mood for the rest of it, and it is almost a surprise at when the intense moment occurs.
Take Oedipus the King for example. The climax of this play is obviously when Sophocles describes Oedipus blinding himself. Like most novels, he builds up suspense to heighten the intense moments to grab the readers attention. Throughout the whole play, Sophocles foreshadows a tragic ending, but the reader obviously does not know what it is. This is very common in plays, especially tragedies, because that is exactly what they are aimed to do at an audience. In The Stranger, Camus does this as well. Camus builds up suspense right before Mersault kills the Arab by using the sun. However, Camus does not foreshadow to the climax as much as play writers do in their works. However what differs the two is when the suspense kicks in. In The Stranger, for example, Camus creates suspense right before he kills the Arab, while in Oedipus the King, Sophocles creates suspense from the beginning of the play when Oedipus wants to discover the truth behind who killed Laius. I think that play writers do a better job at creating this suspense, and intense moments because they design it for an actual audience, rather than a reader. Having a gradual increase in suspense starting from the beginning of a play sets the mood for the rest of it, and it is almost a surprise at when the intense moment occurs.
Journal #1: The Wild Duck
I believe plot is valued greatly in literary works, however the writing style of an author is more important in my opinion. It is rather a strong writing style that creates a strong plot of a story or novel.
In The Wild Duck, Ibsen uses a style that includes many of the actions the characters would perform on play. Ibsen even includes precise movements that each character would do on stage. For example, he writes, "GINA. Because then you'll be free later on, you know. (She goes back into the kitchen. A short pause.)" and "EKDAL. (at the door to the loft, behind the net). Hjalmar!" (160). This creates a stronger visualization for the reader, in that they can picture the scene in their head. Ibsen includes these many actions in writing style because of this reason. He uses it to his advantage. Also, he uses many dashes and commas in his writing. For example, "HJALMAR. And if I should seem unreasonable at times, then-good Lord-remember that I am a man assailed by a host of cares. Ah, yes! (drying his eyes.) No beer at a time like this. Bring me my flute. (Hedvig runs to the bookcase and fetches it.) Thank you. There-so. With flute in hand, and you two close by me-ahh!" (146). Ibsen writes in a more casual style, almost mimicking how most people talk with short, almost choppy sentences.
Sophocles on the other hand has a completely different writing style than Ibsen. In Oedipus the King for example, Sophocles writes with very little action, but rather leaves the reader to interpret their actions. For example, Oedipus says, "Not at all. Apollo told me once-it is my fate-I must make love with my own mother, shed my father's blood with my own hands. So for years I've given Corinth a wide berth, and it's been my good fortune too. But still to see one's parents and look into their eyes is the greatest joy I know" (216). Sophocles writes in an almost riddle-like manner, which was greatly influenced by the time period of when the play was written because plays during the 5-6 B.C. used this writing style. However, his writing style is very strong because it leaves the reader to figure out what he is intending to say. Thus, Sophocles writes many well known tragedies.
In The Wild Duck, Ibsen uses a style that includes many of the actions the characters would perform on play. Ibsen even includes precise movements that each character would do on stage. For example, he writes, "GINA. Because then you'll be free later on, you know. (She goes back into the kitchen. A short pause.)" and "EKDAL. (at the door to the loft, behind the net). Hjalmar!" (160). This creates a stronger visualization for the reader, in that they can picture the scene in their head. Ibsen includes these many actions in writing style because of this reason. He uses it to his advantage. Also, he uses many dashes and commas in his writing. For example, "HJALMAR. And if I should seem unreasonable at times, then-good Lord-remember that I am a man assailed by a host of cares. Ah, yes! (drying his eyes.) No beer at a time like this. Bring me my flute. (Hedvig runs to the bookcase and fetches it.) Thank you. There-so. With flute in hand, and you two close by me-ahh!" (146). Ibsen writes in a more casual style, almost mimicking how most people talk with short, almost choppy sentences.
Sophocles on the other hand has a completely different writing style than Ibsen. In Oedipus the King for example, Sophocles writes with very little action, but rather leaves the reader to interpret their actions. For example, Oedipus says, "Not at all. Apollo told me once-it is my fate-I must make love with my own mother, shed my father's blood with my own hands. So for years I've given Corinth a wide berth, and it's been my good fortune too. But still to see one's parents and look into their eyes is the greatest joy I know" (216). Sophocles writes in an almost riddle-like manner, which was greatly influenced by the time period of when the play was written because plays during the 5-6 B.C. used this writing style. However, his writing style is very strong because it leaves the reader to figure out what he is intending to say. Thus, Sophocles writes many well known tragedies.
Journal #3: Oedipus
Plot plays a significant role in the progression of the story. During this time period, play writers would familiarize the audience with certain characters in plays, such as Apollo for example. The audience would always associate certain events that would happen to that character because their story remained the same throughout all of the plays. Sophocles familiarizes the audience with his characters as well, but he does it for a different result. He changes the story of a certain character to grab the audiences' attention, shocking them in a way. In my opinion, this is why Sophocles progressed in play writing so well. He created new plays in a way, thus the audience would pay more attention and they would be more excited for his next play.
For me the ending of the play was very cliche in that it was the typical ending for a tragedy. The main character goes through a whole speech trying to stress the mistakes that he did. However, it was interesting that in his time of great peril, he did not kill himself, but he rather blinded himself. Oedipus claims to have done it because, "I, with my eyes, how could I look my father in the eyes when I go down to death? Or mother, so abused... I have done such thing to the two of them, crimes too huge for hanging. Worse yet, the sight of my children, born as they were born, how could I long to look into their eyes? No, not with these eyes of mine, never" (243). He did it because he could not bear to see his mistakes with his eyes. He does not want to see what he did. Oedipus feels as if blinding himself would be better because then when he died, he would be blind, rather than seeing everything he had done previously.
For me the ending of the play was very cliche in that it was the typical ending for a tragedy. The main character goes through a whole speech trying to stress the mistakes that he did. However, it was interesting that in his time of great peril, he did not kill himself, but he rather blinded himself. Oedipus claims to have done it because, "I, with my eyes, how could I look my father in the eyes when I go down to death? Or mother, so abused... I have done such thing to the two of them, crimes too huge for hanging. Worse yet, the sight of my children, born as they were born, how could I long to look into their eyes? No, not with these eyes of mine, never" (243). He did it because he could not bear to see his mistakes with his eyes. He does not want to see what he did. Oedipus feels as if blinding himself would be better because then when he died, he would be blind, rather than seeing everything he had done previously.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)