Painted Words

Just to add on what we were talking about in class today:

Poetry leaves thoughts to the reader to create the painting. The colors, the motion and the positioning are up to the reader. Also, like in a painting, the reader interprets the meaning and message. This meaning is created by the influence of daily life: past, present and future.

just an added thought
:0) C-ev

Get the picture

Ok, so I was reading the last bit of "C and P" Sunday night (yeah so I procrastinated a little, at least I read it right?) and I noticed the cute little map in the front of the book. I was reading about Svid as he wandered out to the islands and there was a name of a bridge. So, I couldn't help but use that map that I had found in the front of the book to locate the bridge. I found it quite easily (I have some pretty awesome map skills) and then, when seeing where it was placed in relation to other places in the novel, I decided that it was placed incorrectly. 

This is the problem I am having. By placing a map at the start of the book that shows exactly where everything is I feel like it kind of defeated the whole purpose of reading. It is just like reading a book and then seeing the movie. There is nothing worse than having your favorite book be made into a movie, dropping $9 on a ticket to go see it, and then when it starts and the characters and setting are all shown to you in real life it is all wrong. The "all wrong" part is really just opinion, but when you have a picture of a place or character in your head, and then the physical representation of it is not the same it kind of ruins the whole book for you. 

This is what happened when I looked at where the bridge was on the map. It was in the wrong place, but now I can only see it as being where the map said it is (just like it is hard to picture Harry Potter as being anyone but that dude who plays him in the movies). I hope that people are getting this it is a little hard to understand. 

In the end I feel like the whole purpose of reading a book is that you have to take the words and fabricate a visual in your head. Maps in books and movies of books just dissolve that whole place you made in your mind. I am really mad that that map was put in there, but I don't really know who to blame...

A Frozen Embrace

"With an enormous effort he managed to raise himself on one arm. He stared fixedly and savagely at his daughter for a while, as though he couldn't recognize her. He had never actually seen her dressed like that before. Suddenly he recognized her: dressed up in cheap finery, humiliated, crushed and ashamed, meekly waiting her turn to take leave at her dying father. His face expressed infinite suffering. 'Sonia! My daughter! Forgive me!' he cried, wanting to stretch a hand out to her, but lost his balance and fell in a heap off the couch with his face straight down. They rushed to pick him back up and put him back on the couch, but he was going fast. Sonia cried out weakly, ran up, embraced him, froze in that embrace. He died in her arms." (Dostoyevsky, 179)

Each event in Crime and Punishment is written with an awful elegance by Dostoyevsky. The anxious atmosphere he surrounds his characters scream to the reader the same cramped environment. The position of each character is also very significant. When Marmeladov is on his death bed, I was captured by the dramatic and tragic interactions between father and daughter. In eight sentences Dostoyevsky creates an infinite conclusion to Marmeladov life. In our life as well, there are moments that reverberate in our minds and hearts. They have no end, and in turn one is jolted to a screeching halt as the circumstances seem so surreal. It is hard to conclude such times as these as we are constantly reminded of the past. Life continues to pass by, but no longer with the same meaning.
Marmeladov's face of "infinite suffering" tells of a feeling never to be replenished. When he tries to grasp his daughter's hand he immediately falls to the floor face down creating a sense of hopelessness and udder shame. Sonia reacts to her father's fall and gives him a hug so pure in so much sorrow. Time stops in this moment. In Sonia's arms her father dies and with the passing of Marmeladov there follows a galaxy of emotions that will forever rein in the hearts of the characters.

Get Motivated!

The characters in "C and P" all live in the same city and interact with each other frequently, sometimes even multiple times a day. Yet, the main characters have not come together for reasons that are at all similar. They all have different, personal motives for becoming involved with the other main characters in the book. 

Dunia and Pulcheria both came to St. Petersburg in order for Dunia to marry Luzhin, but the move and the marriage were more than just Dunia getting married. They were looking for a way to be able to be closer to Raskolnikov and to be able to help him both financially and emotionally to get back on his feet. 

Razhumikin watched over Rasky when he was ill because he was a good friend, or that's how it came across. I really feel that he did stay with Rasky out of the good of his heart, yet I think that he is a kind of person who loves to be the hero in a story and come out looking like the knight in shining armor. This is also true of his interactions with Dunia and her mother. He ran all around St. Pburg the night that they arrived bringing them information not only because it was the right thing to do, but because it made him look good. Looking good to Dunia has become the Razzy's main motivation for still being involved in Rasky's life. 

All of the characters in C and P have their own personal motives for being involved in Rasky's life because he influences their lives in a positive way despite his illness and criminal past. This is not a trend that is only seen in "C and P" every relationship in the world whether professional, emotional, or friendly is based on (despite how cold and pathetic it sound) "what can a relationship with this person do for me?" Each person has their own secret motivation for becoming involved in another person's life. Wow, look how motivated we all are...

GBP

Svidrigailov might be considered to be a romantic hero because of 3 things: he showed up at the right time, he wants to save Dunya from Luzhin, and he has money.
Svidrigailov came to Raskolnikov just before the relationship between Dunya and Luzhin ended. Which was heroic because now Dunya has a chance of a life without poverty even though Luzhin is gone.
Svidrigailov told Raskolnikov that he couldn't stand to see dunya with luzhin, and would marry her even though he doesn't love her. So, he is trying to save Dunya from a man he knows wouldn't be good for her.
Svidrigailov, also, has a lot of money that he is going to offer to Dunya (and she and the family need it) as well as money that was willed to her by his wife.
Svidrigailov is, basically, looking out for Dunya's best interests and financial support. He wants to be the one to help her, which in most cases would consider him heroic.

OK so i haven't blogged in such a long time, sorry.
When we were reading The Mill again today i was thinking of how much this kind of stuff actually happens in our society today (people killing themselves over a lost job). It seems pointless to me to killer yourself over something so insignificant in the long run because you can always find a new job, or start a farm to produce food. The weird thing was, when I came home I actually heard of someone who tried to kill himself (but didn't actually do it)over a lost job.
To get back to the poem, one of the most sad lines in the poem is:
"Though ruffled once, would soon appear
The same as ever to the sight."
Which, in my opinion, talks about how the woman thought of herself, one little ruffle in the course of the river, barely even noticeable.

Lost in Translation...

So I have been reading (yay go me right Nigel!?) "C and P" and I have been thinking that there is something wrong with the book. You see Dostoyevsky lived in the 1800s which means (using my logic at least) "C and P" was written in the 1800s. Now I can't help but notice when I'm reading that I can understand exactly what the characters are saying and what is going on. This is both good (you know how much I hate to not understand a book) and bad in that there is a cultural piece that is missing from the book. I feel like people in the 1800's would not talk the way that they are talking in the book. This stems (I think) from the way that the book was translated. The translation that we are reading has a copyright date of in 1968, which I think has really influenced the way that the book was written in English. I really noticed the difference when I read one little line in the book. Rasky says to a girl he meets in front of a bar and after she invites him inside he says to her, "I'm going, sweet stuff." Sweet stuff? I'm no Russian language expert, but I have a feeling that what Dostoyevsky had written in the book in Russian was not intended to be read as sweet stuff. It was put in the translation because there are certain words in other languages that I know do not have an exact equivalent word in English. Because there was no exact work for whatever Rasky had said the translator who was working in the 60's used sweet stuff. I know that there is really nothing that can be done (except for me to learn Russian... not really an option for me right now), but I do think that if you can't read Russian you lose a lot of what the language was meant to actually say. A lot of "C and P" is lost in translation...

The Robin Hood effect

The concept of killing people and stealing to give to others who are needy, is hard to wrap my mind around. Murder is such a complex and emotionally exhausting thing (not that I would know from experience or anything), but the guilt that Rasky toils with and the fear that overwhelms him in the police station seems very tiring and anxious. How shameful must Rasky feel? I totally agree with Em. Dostoevsky does a great job revealing Rasky's inner feelings and anxieties. I feel like certain events in Crime and Punishment emulate, in some ways, of the classic story of Robin Hood. I never really liked Robin Hood. I think he had good motives, just like Rasky, but his moral conscience was just... turned off. That's just a scary idea. Plus he's a fox...And foxes are creepy.

The great big world of Universities

Okay, deep breath. Over my North and South Carolina school hunt this week, my mother and I have toured, investigated, interviewed etc. with nine schools. Even though we are both ready to go into a coma from exhaustion, we have had an amazing time and have got some great advice no matter where I go to college. I have visited: Montreat College, Gardner Webb University, High Point University, University of North Carolina- Chapel Hill, Duke University, University of North Carolina- Wilmington, Columbia International University, University of South Carolina and University of North Carolina- Charlotte. Each school has been so uniquely wonderful for me and all fit various desires for my college years (possible majors= Education, International Cultural Studies, Communications, Dance and Humanities...a lot, I know...ekkk). Some of the best advice that I have gotten on this trip is from an admissions counselor at Columbia International University. The advice is that I should really give thought to what I would do for free. Whatever that may be is what I should go and do. Hmmm.... I still need to think about my answer some more, but I thought it would be helpful to all of you brainy student in picking an occupation and college (and we really don’t have to have it all sorted out by the way). DO SOMETHING YOU LOVE IS THE THEME. I am so excited about my future, and I strongly encourage all of you to go on a college road trip with the rents, because there are SO MANY colleges out there. The world is diverse and wonderful, longing to be explored and challenged. I am pumped to see where everyone in our class will end up at our 10 year reunion because I know each one of you will do bright, unique and exciting things. Lets Shake up this world class of 2009!


P.S. Its kind of sad, this graduating thing, you know. Transitions are so strange...

A little frantic...

I was reading into the second section of Crime and Punishment at work today and I think that I found out why people do read the book over and over again. I was finding myself actually feeling nervous while I was reading about Raskolnikov looking for blood on his clothes. The writing has made me like Rasky (Raskolnikov) even though he killed the old woman. While he was freaking out I felt like I was really there (that sounds so cheesy) experiencing it with him. I have only gotten to the part where he is at the police station, and it is killing me. I am just worried that Rasky will have some guilt attack and just blurt it out and ruin everything. It stinks because I feel like his getting caught is inevitable, but I don't know when or how it will happen. Frankly this book makes me feel anxious and frantic...

Frustration with immature High Schoolers

So we saw "12th Night" at Marshwood a couple days ago and everyone really seemed to enjoy it. Afterwards the cast opened the floor up to questions. I was the last question to be taken, and being an actor, I was curious to know the difficulties in performing/ understanding Shakespeare. I asked the question in a detailed way to make the question clear and also detail is just the way I speak. After the question was answered one of the actors commented on the amazing auditorium. I politely agreed, the bell rang, everyone went to lunch. Now here is the punchline: Random people came up to me in the last two days commenting on how people (more than one mind you) were saying "shut up" to their friends about my "lengthy" question. COOOOOMMMMEEEE ONNNNN! What are you...Like two years old? People can be so ignorant at this age. We are watching Shakespeare to learn and explore the English language, rather than making comments such as "I love your dress." Further more, if people are SO concerned about the time restraint, why don't they just go back to class and get lectured at? ANNND why do these people not have compassion for anyone?? What if I wasn't even asking an intelligent question, what if I had really low self esteem, what if I talked for hours and stuttered over every word because I was nervous to speak in front of people? Luckily I am none of those things and my confidence is secure, but I can't even imagine what the "shut up yellers" do to people in those circumstances. It sickens me. Please grow up, take advantage of the amazing opportunities the school has given us, get some compassion and learn how to communicate with people. UGH.

Profile confusions

I just figured out how to change my profile...It never worked before. Yeah!!! I have an identity now!

x-ray vision

My uber intellegent friend at an Air force Acadamy in Colorado, recently posted this picture. He figured out by taking a picture of the scenery behind his computer, he could create the illusion that his computer is transparent. I saw this as very artistic, very creative and very time consuming. To get the exact right picture, he said it took him days. I guess that's what college is all about. The creative projects of endless free time! I can't wait...

Sonnet... Bonnet?

In the past few months we have been reading some lovely (Ha!) sonnets in class by my one and only favorite person, Willy Shakespeare. Nigel decided that we should write some of our own brainy sonnets, bring them in, and read them to the class. So last week our sonnets were due, and I had spent all weekend counting syllables and stressed and unstressed feet while my family walked by me wondering what the heck I was counting with my fingers and talking to myself about. I looked like a loony, but I finished it and it had the 10 syllables a line, with the stressed  and unstressed pattern. I was pretty darn proud of myself for even finishing, so I strutted into class on Monday feeling pretty good. That feeling lasted only until MS read her sonnet to the class. I thought that it was pretty good (I couldn't count fast enough to see if there were 10 syllables in each line, but it doesn't matter). Then Nigel asked her what her rhyming scheme was. WHAT? RHYMING SCHEME? I started to freak out. Apparently the sonnets had the RHYME! Well I definitely did NOT rhyme anything in my sonnet. After that I didn't want to read it at all. In the end Nigel just said that the sonnet could be fixed and turned in on Friday. Yay! I'll just go and rhyme the last words of the lines and turn it back in. But it's not that simple.

I spent 2 hours on the computer trying to find good words that rhyme with undisguised and that fit into the message of the sonnet. It was super hard. That got me thinking. Shakespeare wrote all kinds of sonnets, 154 if I am not mistaken, and I have a nagging feeling that he didn't go online and look at the rhyming dictionary to get his sonnet to fit the whole abab rhyming set-up. This is where I have to give Willy-boy some mad props. I mean 154 sonnets! That is crazy! I had a hard time writing one, and I used a thesaurus and a rhyming dictionary to get mine to even fit the sonnet "rules". Who knows if it even made any sense, but let me tell you there were the right number of syllables, stressed and unstressed pairs, and those words rhymed gosh darn it!

This has to be some sort of Kodak moment... one you will most likely never see again, so appreciate it now... but I think that Shakespeare did a... nice job when writing his sonnets. 

So sorry

Okay, so I have been a little lame in the blogging department lately... college stuff is due this week so my mind has been elsewhere. I am going to try and put in some good shorter blogs this week to make up for it, though, so be ready (but don't set your expectations too high or you WILL be disappointed)

"fool"ish relief

I would also like to agree with the fact that Nigel is "da man" for letting us do this blog instead of a ginormous project. I am so foolishly relieved that we didn't have to do the project. I am going to try to be more of an avid blogger like my friend em who blogs every other millisecond... andI know a I will have many opportunities with this upcoming project, sonnets and such other assignments. I am pumped for that because I truly do like blogging. :)

The Loyal Fool

"I had rather be any kind o'thing than a fool,yet I would not be thee, nuncle;I am a fool, thou art nothing." (I. iv.)

The fool in William Shakespeare's play "King Lear" is the most, kind, noble and wisest character of them all. With all the turmoil and insanity around him, the fool must maintain his loyalty through clever humour to King Lear. The fool has sympathy for his old and quickly fading master. The fool follows King Lear out into the horrid storm, only to meet the need for humour. Beyond the fool's comical service to the king the fool is a voice of reason and helps to make Lear aware of his wrong to his daughters. The fool serves multiple purposes to the King, but I believe that although the fool is comic relief, he secretly labours over Lear's breaking of heart.

The way the fool was portrayed in the movie we saw of "King Lear" was appropriate for the fool's comments. The irony that the fool presented through his clever verse is only something that comes with age and humble sweetness in character. The old man playing the movie's fool had visual aspects, such as his silver beard and wrinkled face, that echoed a wise, respected man.
The fool is a simple character with nothing noble about his status, but serves a regal purpose. Even though Lear is the fool's master you sense a closeness about them and that Lear is willing to listen to the fool's opinions.
Through his comical ways the fool is able to be very blunt about true reality of each conflict. Only through humour can you sugar coat the subjects of divorcing your children and war. Through humour, even today, comic strips and Saturday night live skits give the public access to explore their positions further as things are exaggerated to the extreme.
Humour can be a cushion of comfort or a segway to enlightened thinking and the fool in "King Lear" greatly impacted Lear's views. Loyalty and humble opinion made the fool 's memorable character in the book, but also in my mind as a truly noble, daring and fascinating character.

About A Fool

I second Em, thanks so much Nigel.
The Fool in "King Lear" is a fascinating character because his title is fool but he makes the most sense in the whole play. He plays the side note of intelligent thought; in modern plays his role would be like the narrator. The fool helps Lear throughout the play by guiding him with his wisdom, which is a good picture because Lear is basically loosing his mind. At the same time, the fool is seen as an incomplete character because he keeps appearing and disappearing through the duration of the play; the fool shows up in times of stress(on Lear's part) to help the audience know what Lear "should do" in these awful times, but chooses not to(which adds to the tragedy of the story). The overall purpose of the fool is to make sure the audience knows what is going on in the play (he gives direction in all aspects). At times the fool can be seen as a sarcastic character, because he points out the odveous, but he is really a character of compasion and intelligence.

Rivals from Canada

After reading " The Rivals" I was a bit confused about where the book actually took place. I know that it said Bath, but through the whole book i was thinking it took place somewhere in Canada. What was up with the language "Hey, and Aye, and Nay." I really am convinced that someone is a Canadian in the book.

the love of theatre

I have just done the last weekend of High School Musical at Ogunquit playhouse and after doing the show one weekend every month for 6 months, it's been quite a ride. Coming out of this experience has really showed me the mastery of this art form (drama) that I have so come to love. The people I worked with were so focused on their character that it took them to a different realm. As I worked around this sort of talent, I am learning to do this as well. There is just something about losing myself in a complete whimsical fiction that excites me greatly. I love becoming someone I'm not. Not that I don't like who I am, but just the fact that I am able to experience life in another's shoes (even if it is just pretend). After reading the play "The Rivals" and reading of Lydia's fantasies about how she wants to be wooed and loved it reminded me of why I love to act. In real life love is not something that most are able to control, but through theater, you can. Also working with the same people for so long, you really become a family and get to know them well. I will miss all the people I met, but I will be visiting them in their prestigious acting schools and in their awesome plays when I someday see them on Broadway. Even though I probably won't do a lot of theatre after high school, I will always love and cherish the art of acting.

Fool-ish

I am so happy that I have to write this blog about the Fool in "King Lear" and that I don't have to do a whole project on it. Making the project into a blog made my entire week (thanks Nigel)!
The Fool in "King Lear" is an interesting character. During the small amount of scenes that he is in it seems like he is the (very cryptic and riddle-filled) voice of reason and responsibility for Lear as he slips down the icy slopes of old age. An interesting idea that I had not thought of when reading the play initially is that the Fool acts very much like how Cordelia would act in the same situation. The Fool is Lear's version on his youngest daughter and tries to steer him away from silly, and sometimes dangerous places and ideas. It is interesting because the Fool and Cordelia are never actually in the same place at the same time (meaning they are never in scenes with each other). This shows that, in a time and place where loyalty and love were hard to find, Lear was a good enough person to justify two completely separate people, who (as we know) do not know each other or have any connection other than Lear himself, giving their time, advice, care, and loyalty to him in his time of need .
Yet, as opposed to elaborating on the character of the Fool, Shakespeare does not write him into a good majority of the scenes. After the start of Act IV the Fool is not seen or heard from until the end when Lear, in all his grief and sadness, tells of how his Fool was killed. The genuine sadness and elegiac mood (nice word... I know) that surrounds Lear when he talks about the loss of the Fool shows how much of an impact he had on his king's life. When Lear dies it is a combination of many factors that include his old age, and death of his daughter, but also the death of the Fool, because to Lear the Fool represented Cordelia in times when actually having Cordelia there was not an option (because he banished her which is a whole other ball of wax that rolls into all of this). It was the Fool that helped Lear cope with the ramifications of his decision to send Cordelia away. Without the Fool I feel that Lear would not have lasted as long as he did simply because there would be no one there to comfort him, and to keep him from doing very stupid things. After both of his loyal friends and family members had dies there was no way for Lear to keep going without the support and comfort that both Cordelia and the Fool had offered him.
In "King Lear" the Fool is the most interesting and incomplete character simply because of the influence he had on the plot of the play and the main characters, and because of the fact that he had such an impact while only being included in a few of the scenes of the play. Frankly with the Fool it is not quantity it is quality...

Boxes in my head

So I have been trying for the past week to start my essay about... well the essay that I have to write about. It is "Unpacking my Library" by Walter Benjamin, and it is very different from the other essays that oter groups have had to write about. This is both good and bad. "Unpacking my Library" is a very easy read...which is a good thing for me the Queen of "There are too many big words and long sentences". But, it is less of an evaluation of an abstract subject like the other essays... which is not a good thing. This is because there is nothing really to evaluate of to interpret about the essay. It is more of a story being told by the author about his past experiences with collecting books. Pretty straight-forward right? So today a few other people in my group and I asked Nigel, after class, about what we should b writing about. And he went and brought up the idea that the essay is not as literal as it seems. That is is more of a giant metaphore for something way bigger... or maybe deeper than what I had thought it was about. I don't want to give away exactly what he had said about it because I want to sound really smart when I read my essay to the class and it contains ideas that no one else thought about (wow I am a self-centered stinker :) ). Maybe this will help other people who read the essay and find that it is very square and palpable compared to the other essays there is more to it than meets the eye (I am now hoping that I am not the only person who did not see this alternate meaning when first reading the essay I would feel really silly about this whole post).

Mind Boggling

So I am a little over half way done with "The Rivals" by Richard Brinsley Sheridan, and I have to say that I feel like I need to make a chart. There is an intense kind of love circle-squarey-thing going on with the characters. They are all connected to each other in some way or another. But, I feel like the center of all of the confusion and disorganization is Absolute. To Lydia he is Beverly, but to everyone else he is Absolute. When other suitors, that are his friends like Acres, find out that Jydia is in love with some guy named Beverly they get all upset and challenge Beverly (who is really Absolute) to a dual. But then when Absolute's father decides to have his son marry Lydia Absolute has to go to her house and pretend to be Beverly pretending to be Absolute despite the fact that he is Absolute. Whew! This is exactly what I meant about the book and the intricate character relationships. Frankly my mind is spinning...

Can we move no more?

As I was reading through "Between Past and Future" one statement stuck out to me. It was one that I've heard many times before, but for so odd reason I couldn't stop thinking about it: "There is nothing in this situation that is altogether new. We are only too familiar with the recurring outbursts of passionate exasperation with reason, thought, and rational discourse..." This statement to me seems to be a big let down; there is nothing else for me to create because someone probably already thought of it. Then, I thought it would be interesting to know all of the "firsts" in the world, because there had to be one. Now, since every idea or theme has already been thought of, how long has the modern world been stuck in this rut of recurring themes? No one will ever know.

Love is...?

In discussing William Shakespeare's sonnet 116, "Let me not the marriage of true minds," I find that I am asking myself what is love and what are the different forms of love? Is it true? Does it withstand trials? How will I know if I am in love?
Love is the essence and obsession of all of the world. Our movies our culture is based off this feeling. everyone is searching whether they know it or not and if they deny they are searching for love, love is on the search for them. To love a person is something unconditional and pure. You are willing to lose yourself to be part of that person, to grow with that person. Love is so different for everyone but is similar to all that it is a strong feeling that is used to describe subjects with passion and meaning. Love conquers all things, restores all things...it goes above and beyond expectations. But what do I know? I am only a child. It is true I have been loved by my parents and an omnipotent and awesome God that has created me.
So maybe I do know what it is to be loved, but loving others...that is the hard part. "Love is not love which alters when alteration finds," meaning if life gets you down and things get tough, love will remain true, never be shaken and remain strong and firm. Love drives the human soul, controlling our emotions making us confused in our own desires. Love cannot be controlled but harnessed, maybe saved for a later date. There are different kinds of love. Love can be superficial and driven by lust and on the other side be a pure sign of respect, fear and gratitude. Love can hurt and scar you, love can restore and raise you to places you never imagined. But what do I know? I am only a child.

"Listening is understanding
and finding compassion
love is the action of soul satisfaction
a tongue can make wishes and also fine kisses
taste a sweet cake and also cast disses
but nothing compares to the voice from within
without it we might just be mannequins
up to no darn good shenanigans
learn to be skillful movers of the stones
that block the heart and turn humans to clones
learn to forgive, set free the bones
touch with your flesh, take off the rubber gloves
love like your life depends on it
because it does."
-Michael Franti and Spearhead from "Speaking of Tongues"

TASs... It's all backwards

So here I am trying to get things all situated to get up tomorrow at 6:15 in order to go and take the SATs (FOR THE SECOND TIME) in York. I am trying to sharpen my pencils (I keep overheating our pencil sharpener. Who knew that could happen, but it is really annoying) and I got to thinking about just how much pressure there is involved with taking these and other so called "standardized tests". 

We have always known just how important SAT scores are in getting you into college. For many schools the scores that people get on the SATs are a way of narrowing down the "pack". If a school (mostly larger ones) gets a ton of applications they have no way of going through each and every one of them and reading the essays and credentials that EACH individual applicant has. In order to weed out some of the applications schools will often just not look at applications with SAT scores below a certain point. This means that if you do badly on the SATs there is a potential for you to miss out on some schools no matter what your transcript, letters or recommendation, or leadership positions say about you. I feel like this is not the right way to do things. There are countless people who have a very hard time dealing with the pressure of taking a timed test that they know has the potential to impact their futures (who wouldn't have slight anxiety about this?), or just have a hard time on tests. These people end up thrown under the bus if their scores do not turn out well.

I think that the scores on SATs should only be used at the end of the application review process. If there are two people who are equal in all different application sections, then maybe the scores from the SATs should come into play. This would give the people who have a hard time taking tests a fighting chance at at least getting their applications read and looked at.

This is all so stressful! Well.... wish me luck! Tomorrow could change my life...(how dramatic sounding is that? Pretty intense huh?)

Half Full

So, I am going to do something a little out of character for me... so bear with me. 

I started reading "Unpacking My Library" by Benjamin today in study hall just to try and get a head start on it. The last few essays have been really long and dense, so I was thinking that if I read a few pages a night carefully that I would be able to finish it in time to write the essay, and I would (hopefully) understand the content more.

I was dreading even starting it after having read the last few, but I got myself together and started reading (I figured if I had some sort of brain aneurism someone would take me to the hospital [I was in the library not the cafe. No one in the cafe would have helped me.])

To my surprise I actually liked the first two pages that I read! I was literally shocked! I NEVER like those kind of hippie-dippy interpretive stuff. But, I genuinely liked the pages that I read (I bet only the first few pages are good in order to lure you in and then the long words/sentences come out and get you. It's like some sort of literary trap!).

I think that I liked it because, unlike the other essays, it is told in a more fictional way. It is told like more of a story than like an analysis or interpretation. I am actually not dreading reading more and writing a paper on it (this does not mean the paper will be good, I don't want for you all to put that pressure on me).

Anyway, I just thought that I would share my shock and amazement with all of you, since I'm pretty sure that I am the resident Negative Nancy when it comes to reading weird literature in our class. I'm trying to be more optimistic like I said to do in my last post. I guess that this is a pretty good start...

Why so dark?

Today we went over Shakespeare's Sonnet 116 in class. We came up with many different interpretations of how the poems made us feel/think, but they can all pretty much be divided into 2 different views: The optimistic/Romantic view and the pessimistic/I hate love poetry group. Now since this is my post I am only going to share my feelings on the matter and not bother showing the pros and cons of each side (that's bogus writing stuff). I definitely am in the first group of Romantics and optimists (surprising I know, who would think I would be optimistic). The general consensus of the angry unhappy people was that the poem, which focuses on the power of love, is just one giant, overused cliche. I have to agree with that. First of all is cliches are cliches it is because people use them a lot, and they would not use the cliches if they didn't have some sort of importance, influence, or special meaning in their lives. I would have to say that love is a cliche, but not a cliche in bad way.
The poem gave me a very happy feeling. It was a very romantic and optimistic view on the power of love and all that true love can overcome. I feel like today, in a world where we focus mostly on the negative aspects of life (I am guilty here), it is important to almost force yourself into thinking/reading/seeing positive things. Part of the reason why a lot of people felt that this was an overdone cheese fest, I think, was because, as a generation, we have been bred into a lot of negativity and that is what we have come to known in our everyday lives. Many people may feel that this is incorrect, but if you spend the day listening to all the negative things you say, even the small statements, you would find that you complain quite a bit. It is not like I am trying to pull a "holier then thou" attitude because I am as guilty as anyone of being negative (as you can see from my previous blogs)
In the end, I think that reading the sonnet and the reactions that we had to it as a smaller representation of a much larger and more looming problem that we as humans have today.

Breaking of the Heart+"King Lear"= Dead People

"Led him, begged for him, saved him from despair.
Never—O fault!—revealed myself unto him
Until some half-hour past, when I was armed.
Not sure, though hoping of this good success,
I asked his blessing, and from first to last
Told him my pilgrimage. But his flawed heart—
Alack, too weak the conflict to support—
'Twixt two extremes of passion, joy and grief,
Burst smilingly." (Act V, scene iii, lines 203-211)

In Shakespeare's "King Lear" the breaking of a heart is a common motif that is seen throughout the play in both a literal and figurative sense. This quote was said by Edgar to Albany after he defeats his half-brother Edmund in a duel (duel is such a fun word). Edgar it telling of how, when he told his blinded father, Gloucester, that he was his son Edgar, Gloucester's heart "burst smilingly". This shows the breaking of the heart motif in a VERY literal way. Gloucester's heart actually did break when he heard that the person leading him through the English countryside was his banished son. I feel like his heart burst out of a combination of joy, sadness, guilt, stress, and old age. It is easy to see just how overwhelmed the poor, old man had felt and what that had done to his physical being.
Another place at the end of the play where the breaking of a heart is seen is when Lear carries in the body of a dead Cordelia.

"Howl, howl, howl, howl! Oh, you are men of stones.
Had I your tongues and eyes, I'd use them so
That heaven's vault should crack. She's gone forever.
I know when one is dead and when one lives.
She's dead as earth." (Act V, scene iii, lines 270-274)

Lear is beside himself about the loss of his last daughter that was alive and was the only who truly loved him. The part of the quote that I feel is the most powerful and effective in showing his grief is the first line where Lear "howl"s multiple times. Howl is such a powerful and unusual word to use which makes the whole quote even more moving and upsetting. This quote is the reaction of a parent who has lost their child, and since that is such a distressing situation I don't feel like there is really any way that the feelings professed by the parent could be explained or understood. Because this feeling is really unexplainable I think that the quote does a good enough job at trying to get the reader to understand the feelings that Lear has. After this quote Lear's mental state deteriorates quickly with him starting to think that Cordelia really is alive and that she is talking to him. A few lines later Lear collapses and dies.
In both of these quotations a heart breaks which, in the end, results in the character's death. For Gloucester it was a literal breaking of his heart that leads to his demise, while it was a culmination of mental illness, old age, and grief that, in the end, did in King Lear.

Kick it old school!

I don't understand why so many people hate the language of Shakespeare. In discussions of the book the "language issue" always finds its way out of the mouths of the readers, but my question is: Why is that such a huge deal?
If i could have it my way, i would love to be able to throw out an eloquent Shakespearean sentence when ever i wanted just to see the pondering look on the faces around me.

So Sad...

"Go to, go to. Better thou
Hadst not been born than not t' have pleased me better"
This was said to Cordelia by King Lear after her proclamation of love was said to be inadequate by the old King. One aspect of Shakespeare that is not very much focused in the writing is the real emotional effects that some events or actions, that take place in the play, have, or would have had, on people. I find it easier to think about literature (especially older pieces... like Shakespeare) in a more modern sense. This is done by taking the events that take place and placing them into one's own life. This helps to bring the events of the novel or play to life, and it helps the reader to understand what it is that the characters are truly experiencing.
For me there were many saddening moments that took place in the play. One of them was during Act I, scene i when King Lear decides that his daughter Cordelia does not love him enough (even though she really is the one who loves him the most). But wealth, power, and the ego got in the way of his love for his daughter and he ended up disowning her "medieval style" by giving her away to the first man that would take her as a wife. It is so upsetting to me that all that it takes to come between a parent-child bond is power and ego. I put myself in her position of having my father, who I have loved my whole life, decide one day that I am not fluffing his ego enough and kick me out. This would be not only be confusing, but very, very upsetting.
I'm sure that parent child relationships in the medieval times, especially those in royal families, were a little different than those today, but because I am living in modern times, and I have no other way to connect myself to the characters in older literature, I use this method to help me understand exactly what the people in the novels are feeling about certain decisions.

For real...stuck in an elevator...

Hey check this out everyone:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_bMhNI_TY8

I feel frustrated watching this.

"Rumble thy bellyful..."

"Rumble thy bellyful. Spit, fire. Spout, rain! Nor rain, wind, thunder, fire are my daughters. I tax not you, you elements, with unkindness. I never gave you a kingdom, called you children, you owe me no subscription. Then let fall your horrible pleasure. Here I stand your slave, a poor, infirm, weak, and despised old man..." (Shakespeare III: ii)
Today in class we talked about why Lear would wait out the storm. The class had an array of brainy answers, but this is what I think: Lear is frustrated with himself, saddened by his daughters and needs to just let it all out in the midst of a thrashing storm. I brought up that it is easier to cry in the shower, freely emitting emotions that will just blend in with the surroundings. Lear feels at home with the angry storm, so he stays in the comfort of it. it is the idea of pathetic fallacy that struck me the most, The idea that nature is mourning with Lear as the skies crack and the ground rumbles, the turmoil that Lear expresses is congruent to the atmosphere. So, right on King Lear!
By the way, I like Shakespeare's way of speaking. His words are elegant. Even though the concepts are hard to comprehend, the text really makes me "turn my brain on." It causes me to enjoy the plot thoroughly, rather than just coasting through.

Okay (deep breath) let me try again?

Okay, so maybe I was a little fired up when I was writing, but that doesn't mean I don't dislike the dude any more. I still hate him just as much as ever, but I am trying to understand where you are coming from. I am going to agree with you Rosie, that Shakespeare's stuff is easier to understand when in is actually performed on stage (by actual actors, NOT fifth grade students in from of their class fighting with wooden swords). And, the plot of Lear is not bad, it is the language that ruins it for me. His ideas were good (which has to count for something, I guess) it was just the way that he got them across to the readers that stinks. I don't want you to think I am some psycho "Negative Nancy" (sadly that is me the majority of the time) with my angry rants, but at the same time I don't feel the need to hold my anger inside (it's not healthy, ask Dr. Phil) and let it build up until I explode (the last post was not an explosion... not even close). Shakespeare might not have had it out for fifth graders around the world when he wrote his plays, but he did have a flaw in the way that he delivered his plots to his readers and performers (wow I sound so controlled... go me).

wow that's harsh

Em (or whatever your blog name is)-- obviously you have some pent up anger issues regarding Shakespeare. and i don't blame you...but i don't think it's fair to lay it all on the little dead guy. He didn't know kids would be forced to memorize his lines, and back in the day that's how they talked. Which you know of course and I get your point. (Maybe there's a fifth grade english rehab or something that you can go to).

Regarding Lear specifically, I think it's alright. It's easier to understand his plays when they're acted out. That's what they were made for. Maybe we could try watching a movie version--the newest one was made for TV in '83 starring Laurence Olivier (who did a buttload of Shakespeare's stuff so he seemed to like it) . But I don't think we should immediately jump to the film without trying to get the gist of the play first.
There's so much going on in Lear I don't know what to think. Sometimes Lear seems like just an old guy lost in a new era. I pity him. But other times he's an absolute loon who does nothing but bring calamity on himself. And that's just aggravating. Even though a lot has already happened in the first two acts--just you wait there's more action to come...I hope it's violent.

What is his problem?

Okay, so here it is. We just started reading Shakespeare's King Lear and I have to say that I am not loving it too much (that's me being polite about it). I do feel bad, though, because I feel as if I came into reading the book already hating it. See I have a little...resentment built up towards our old friend Will that goes back all the way to fifth grade.
My teacher, Mr. Englund, had us read Romeo and Juliet and perform it for the class. That play was burned into my brain (I can still recite my long lines) but I had no idea what the words I was saying meant. That is what bothers me about Shakespeare. Why write plays in a form of English that no real, normal person understands? If the only person that can read your work is you, why publish it and force people (like innocent fifth graders) to have to plod through it like trying to run through a chin-high mud pit with rocks in your shoes. There is no sense in it at all! That is why I have a hard time being excited about reading any works with Shakespear's name attached to them.
Whew! Glad I got all that out. Anyway, so I think that my already tainted views of Willy-boy had already ruined the chances of me liking King Lear. And now that I am a few acts into the play, my fears have been realized. Every two words you have to look at a footnote at the bottom of the page, which is nice because they help me to understand words, (that I will never ever know or want to know for that matter), but they force you to break up the sentences so much that it is hard to string all of the words together into an intelligible ( or maybe not intelligible) sentence. There is one thing that I have to say in favor of the play (as of right now at least). That is that the plot line of King Lear it seems to be okay. That meaning, if it was written in normal American English it might not be half bad. But, as of right now, I see Shakespeare, not as one of the most famous writers in the English language, but as a terrible man who wanted to make the lives of children miserable.

i can't reach the top buttons if it makes you feel any better

haha, sorry if my brilliance spoils your day. I have no clue what I'm doing...welcome to the elevator.

No thank you

I don't really feel like being friendly at this moment, actually...I don't really WANT to be friendly. I have had an extremely frustrating day. After spilling O.J. on my perfectly planned outfit I realized that today was just no good. So I sulk out of the house with a pessimist's outlook on life. First and third period go by and then comes fifth period: AP Lit. with geezer Rosinski. We all presented our thematic statements on Percy Shelly's "Ozymandias." After slaving many, many hours (well, maybe not hours, but I'm trying to be dramatic) of my precious free time, struggling to think of something both clever, intelligent and accurate about the poem, I came up with a nice response. I presented it with pride and confidence, but was quickly shut down when geezer man claimed, "Well, Kyla just does it better than all of you. Kyla wins. Yea..." He pretty much made her the goddess of thematic statements. UGH. I was owned and I knew it. Anyways, after I left that class, I get stuck in an elevator with some weirdos trying to be "friendly." Oh! By the way, guess who I'm stuck in the elevator with? Yep, you guessed it! The Goddess herself, Kyla Rose. I hate my life.

How Did THIS Happen?

I was just going up to the fourth floor and now I am stuck inside this dark cramped box with three other people! How awkward! I frankly don't even know what to do. We have been ringing that silly little red alarm button for like 20 minutes, and has anyone come to get us? NO! Not a single person has even tried to get to us. The worst part of all of this is the fact that I don't know any of the other people in here. I guess that I should try to be friendly and at least try to talk to them. Who knows maybe they will be cool people with interesting stuff to say. . . . . .