- After
we finished discussing Waiting for
Godot , our last play for this semesterwas Rosencrantz
and Guildenstern are Dead.
As compared to Beckett’s play, Stoppard gave us a long introduction like in Death
of Salesman. We got knowledge about the two main actors, their environment
and the time before we read the play. Moreover, we could generalize that one
character was related more to intellect and the other one was related to more
bodily things of humans in Waiting for Godot. However, in Stoppard’s
play, I could not do this separation. They looked like a bit similar to each
other. Maybe Guildenstern (Guil) was a bit smarter than Rosencrantz (Ros)
because Guil was questioning the situations instead of accepting it.
- While I was reading this Stoppard’s play, I
started to think the previous play. There were some similarities, according to
me. For example, the main characters in the two plays were waiting. Vladimir & Estragon were waiting for Godot and Guil
& Ros were waiting for revealing what Claudius wanted them. Additionally,
Guil & Ros were waiting to do what Claudius wanted. These characters spent
their times with unnecessary things. To illustrate, Guil & Ros were
flipping the coin. Moreover, these characters did not know anything. That is,
Vladimir and Estragon knew just they should wait for Godot. They did not know
why. Also, Guil & Ros knew just they were called from the palace. They did
not know why, either. They did not know even who was who because on page 7, Ros
introduced himself as Guil to Player.
- In
the class, we did a different activity. We prepared some questions and answered
each other’s questions in a group. I liked one of the questions which were
about connection between Hamlet’s conclusioned and this play’s conclusioned.
Hamlet was questioning why these people were suffering and they preferred
living. He added the reason was to suffer in this life is better than going
somewhere unknown. While he was dying, he said rest is silence. Guildenstern said at the end of the play, on page 64, death was the absence of presence. They
defined death slightly different.
- We
also learned existentialism is to choose something and even not to choose means
a kind of choosing. In the play, on page 55, Ros and Guil understood that they would die.
However, they chose not to do anything for saving their lives. According to
existentialism, men’s fate should not be controlled by the others and they
should be active in their lives. Rosencrantz said: “I wish I was
dead.”. They gave up. Moreover, they did
not exist from the beginning of the play because they did not have control or
choices about their lives. To go back to real death, Guildenstern defined the
death as not existing on page 55 again.
- One of the play’s themes was fear. At the beginning, they flipped the coin but it always came up heads. Guildenstern feared about how it can be possible. Then he questioned this probability. Guildenstern said on page 4 : “ A scientific approach to the examination of phenomena is a defense
against the pure emotion of fear.”. The fear was death. The science makes
unknown things clear for us, so it helps us not to fear. As we know more about
what is going on our environment, we feel more in secure.
- The predictable thing in the play
and in our lives is one day all of us will die. On page 35, Guildenstern said even thought of death was terrible. According to him, the death cannot be
showed in the play like a real act. That is, we, as mortals, cannot know how it
is. However, Player thought one talented actor can act like a dead very well.
On page 38, he said: “There's nothing more unconvincing than an, unconvincing
death.”
.
Nowadays, we see a lot of deaths on TVs and we suppose the deaths in the movies
were real. Then, we cry. Although we do not know how it was, the effect of
being dead can be presented to us.
Moreover, on page 35, Rosencrantz talked about in any part of
our lives, we must have lived this feeling that we will die and our lives will finish.
- This week, our
play was “ Waiting for Godot”. I started to read it before coming to
class. While I was reading it, I thought I missed somewhere because I did not understand how they came to
another topic. I was very confused. When I finished it, the end did not fit
with my expectations. A week before, I finished A Doll’s House and it
has an ending. In Beckett’s play, there was no conclusion. On the contrary,
there was a lasting cycle which occurred while waiting for Godot. It went on
each day. Moreover, I thought there was no meaningful communication at all
while I was reading the play. Sometimes Vladimir and Estragon were talking
about different things while trying to communicate. An example was on page 7:
- ESTRAGON:
- Who?
- VLADIMIR:
- What?
- ESTRAGON:
- What's
all this about? Abused who?
- VLADIMIR:
- The
Savior.
- ESTRAGON:
- Why?
- VLADIMIR:
- Because
he wouldn't save them.
- ESTRAGON:
- From
hell?
- VLADIMIR:
- Imbecile!
From death.
- ESTRAGON:
- I
thought you said hell.
- Estragon asked
irrelevant questions to Vladimir. Similarly, in A Doll’s House, there is
no serious communication between Torvald and Nora. However, at the end of the
play, Nora and Torvald made their first serious conversation.
- Some of my thoughts which are above
were partly pointed out in the class also. Additionally, the most attractive thing at the
beginning of the play was related to background knowledge. There was no
detailed information. I could only know that there was a country road and a
tree. When compared to A Doll’s House, this information was just a
little because we could get the idea of how the environment was in Ibsen’s play
with the help of detailed description of background and the stage.
- The process of waiting in the play
was very boring. However, when I thought the
play reflected us, it gained a meaning. For example, if we leave our works to
do and look at our surroundings, we can see many examples like Vladimir and
Estragon. They were mostly us. They did not make any important changes in their
lives. The only thing they did was just to wait for the death, hope or God.
While waiting, they filled their times with some insignificant things which
were talking about boots, watching the dance of Lucky or imitating Pozzo and
Lucky’s roles. They even thought committing suicide by hanging themselves on
the tree. To turn to our lives, we were born and we will die. While waiting the
death, we filled our lives with some enjoyments. Like Vladimir and Estragon
needed each other, we need somebody to talk, to enjoy or to die with together
in our lives. Like Vladimir and Estragon did not move even they said “I am
going” on page 6, we have some plans but if we do not make an effort, our plans
stay just as words.
- In the play, the dreams stood out
me. Estragon’s dreams
were never emerged. Vladimir said on
page 12: “Don’t tell me!... Let them remain private. You know I can’t bear
that.” When Estragon said : “I had
dream.”. I think, Vladimir did not want to hear hopes , which
would not come true, or uncertain things about their lives because Vladimir
represented human’s intelligence in the play. He was more realistic than
Estragon, so he found dreams nonsense.
- Pozzo was very attractive character.
He may be a symbol of God, Hitler, employer or the government when I thought of Beckett’s
life. That is, Pozzo controlled Lucky and he told people what to do or when
they should think. On page 51, Pozzo wanted lucky to dance and think. If he was
a symbol of God, this would be a good example. That is, God has some plans and
we apply them in one way or another. If he was a symbol of employer, Lucky
would be a symbol of workers. In those times, employers threatened workers as
if they were slaves.
- I also wondered that why they always
forgot what they did a day before. For example, Estragon said that they had
been to same place; however he could not prove it
. He was not sure
what they did in the previous days. Estragon said on page 11: “(very
insidious). But what Saturday? And is it Saturday? Is it not rather
Sunday? (Pause.) Or Monday? (Pause.) Or Friday?”. The answer of what I wondered was hidden
in this statement that I
understood they did not care the time and each day was similar to the other
day. Therefore, they did not need to remember everything. They lived just this moment.
- Pozzo’s
speech on page 43 was quite funny. His speech tone and the sentences he used
looked like one of Hamlet‘s soliloquy. While he was saying “What is there so
extraordinary about it? Qua sky. It is pale and luminous like any sky at this
hour of the day. (Pause.) In these latitudes. (Pause.) When the
weather is fine. (Lyrical.)”, we can understand he was acting. Like in Hamlet,
he acted as someone else although he acted as Pozzo also in the play. Although
Hamlet’s soliloquies were thoughtful and tragic, Pozzo’s speech was looked like
a comedy because he forgot the words.
- While I was thinking, I found that Lucky, who
was the minor character in the play, was actually lucky despite of that he
seemed ill fated. Vladimir and Estragon were waiting for Godot to come. They
did not have a purpose. On the contrary, they were just
waiting and they did not know even if Godot came, what they would do
with him. When I looked at Lucky, he had his Godot who was Pozzo. Of course,
Pozzo threatened Lucky very bad. However, Lucky was not grumbling because he
had a purpose and he had works to do. Maybe this can be the message that if we
do not consider the life as meaningless, we are lucky ones. In the second act,
on page 126, it was written in Pozzo’s speech
that “On. (Lucky, laden down, takes his place before Pozzo.) Whip! (Lucky
puts everything down, looks for whip, finds it, puts it into Pozzo's hand,
takes up everything again.) Rope! Lucky puts everything down, puts end
of rope into Pozzo's hand, takes up everything again”. Lucky’s and Pozzo’s
roles changed in this act. I cannot decide in this act if Pozzo was master of Lucky or Lucky had
some power on Pozzo.
- In the beginning of act II, Vladimir
sang a song loudly. There was an important point in the song that it had also
repetition, like what they lived for each day. In the first act, Vladimir and
Estragon talked, Pozzo and Lucky appeared, they spent some time together, a
messenger child came to say Godot would not come today . The second act was the
repetition of the first act. The sequences of the events were mostly similar,
but there were some changes in details. The song also was like the summary of
main idea of the play. Vladimir said on page 69: “A dog came in the kitchen, and
stole a crust of bread… A dog came in the kitchen And stole a crust of bread.”.
To sum up, according to this, the next day will be the repetition of the
previous day.
- I liked the way Beckett showed what
happened in real life during the wars. For example, in the act II, Pozzo was
blind and he fell down on Lucky. They needed help; however, Vladimir and
Estragon dealt with another thoughts and things while Pozzo was saying “Help!”.
They created different approaches about if they should help Pozzo. They did not
think his pain. Like in the real life, people are shopping, going concerts,
chatting etc… while other people are suffering from the wars or struggling with
the wars or starvation. This was one of the scenes I like best.
- The
child in the play had a role as a messenger. He brought a message from Godot
for Vladimir and Estragon. While discussing this in the class, most of us
thought that the child represented an angel. The question was why Beckett chose
a boy as an angel or why Beckett did not choose a good man instead of the
child. I thought and said that all of us believe children have no sin and they
are innocent. Therefore, he might choose the child because of this reason.
- I
loved Ibsen’s style and the solution to the problem. Although
he presented the problem and found a solution, he also left it open for a discussion as to whether the character’s action was right
or wrong. To illustrate, Nora left Helmer at the end of the play when she
opened her eyes and recognized some realities about her life. The action she
did might not be right, according to some people. Some women choose to stay
with their husbands whatever happens. This is a debatable action.
- I found an interesting point that
women could not borrow money in Ibsen’s times. I knew women were under control
of their husbands or their fathers, but I did not know this borrowing
situation. I searched from the internet that what the women’s rights in those
times were. Then, I found “Married Women’s Property Act”. The reason of the
act’s start is that a woman could not sell or transfer any freehold and make
contracts. This male dominated society
has changed since Ibsen’s times, but not completely. Even now, this dominance
can be felt by a lot of women. In the lesson, one of my friends defended that
women want this system. According to him, we, as women, do not want to join parliament
or any government stuff. On the contrary, Esra said men were controlling the
written things, so women did not have equal right with men. I agree with her.
For example, in the play, Nora said :“… a wife has no right to save her
husband’s life? I don’t know much about the law..”. Nora did not know the law
because her father and her husband did not think that it was necessary for
Nora. Nora was perceived just as a doll.
- After I read A Doll’s House,
I wanted to find out in this play what the similarity differences from Death
of Salesman were. I learned in the lesson, Ibsen’s play was
realistic. Therefore, everything in the play was related to the real life. I
mentioned about male dominated
situations. These events, like not being considered as an
individual may happen to anyone in Ibsen’s times. In Death of Salesman, Willy had “American Dream” and in those
times, a lot of people had these thoughts which means working hard help you to
have a better life. To talk about the differences, while reading A Doll’s
House, we forget that it is a play. I found myself into the play because it goes chronologically like TV
serials. However, in Death of Salesman, there are flashbacks. That is,
Willy lost himself in his memories and the scene immediately turned to past. It
was hard to follow while reading it. The other difference is related to the
importance in the plays. For example, while in A Doll’s House,
presenting and solving the problem was important, expressing feelings, sorrows
or hopes was the important thing in Death of Salesman.
- One of the lies in the play is about
eating macaroons. Can these macaroons be a sign of something ? I think they can
be some taboos which were related to woman’s rights. Torvald did not want her
to have them. I searched on the internet to find out what else these macaroons
may represents. I found it can be a symbol of rebellion. I agreed with this
statement. It was to be rebellious against her husband.
- Everybody could recognize that
Torvald called Nora as a little, cute animal. This was very annoying for me
because Torvald treats Nora as a father
likes his daughter. For example, on page 8, Helmer called Nora: “… the
squirrel…my lark…” all the time. Moreover, on the same page, Torvald did an
action like a father got angry with his daughter. It was written that “[ He goes
up to her and takes her playfully by the ear]”.
- Do Nora has any similarity with
other characters in the plays which we read during the semester? The answer is
yes. I think Nora resembles Jocasta and Linda. They were loyal to their
husbands and they loved their husbands so much that these women could do
anything no matter what it took. For example, Jocasta and Linda gave up their
kids to protect their husbands. Additionally, Nora committed a big crime by
imitating her death father’s signature and borrowing money as a woman for her
husband. All of these actions were only for their husbands.
- Through
the play, Nora was changing in terms of her character and her thought. In the
first act, Nora was acting childishly and believed that the law might forgive
her for her crime which was about imitating the signature and borrowing money.
Also, she thought when Torvald learned the truth; he would pay Nora’s debt
money. She said : “ If my husband gets to know about it, he will of course pay
you off at once …” on page 26. In the second act, Nora used Dr. Rank’s love for
her own benefits. She asked him to keep Torvald in the room while she was
dealing with Krogstad. Although Nora told Dr. Rank about her past memory which
was to love her father and her servants in two different ways (One
of love which she had for her servants was because of their talking. Nora’s
love for Dr. Rank looked like this.), Dr. Rank did not care and helped
her. In the final act, Nora turned to an
adult and she gave up her childish behaviors. After Torvald captured Krogstad’
letter, Nora realized Torvald was not her husband she had known for years.On page 63, Torvald said
: “ You have destroyed my whole
happiness. You have ruined my future…” She did not expect
this reaction from her husband. While leaving from her husband,
she said she did not believe in miracles anymore. I mean, she opened her eyes
now. Therefore, I concluded that Nora changed totally.
- Briefly, I wanted to see differences
between Nora and Linden. Therefore, I wrote their similar features on a piece of paper. I
found that Nora was more energetic than Linden. As I mentioned before,
Nora, like a kid, did some actions without thinking about their
consequences. However, Linden was more thoughtful and believed that a marriage
should have honesty. Also at the end of the play, their roles changed. Nora
destroyed her marriage while Linden was finding her happiness with Krogstad.
- When I finished to read the play at
first, I thought the end was a bit disappointing from the point of Torvald’s
view . After Nora decided to leave her husband, she said “.. I take nothing
from strangers.” on page 71. Nora spent her years with her husband, but she
called her husband now as a stranger. Although Torvald begged her, Nora’s
decision was to make herself happy. These thoughts came to my mind just one
minute while thinking. Then I strongly agreed with Nora’s decision. Torvald
deserved loneliness. In the end, I thought he was selfish. When Helene brought
a letter which was from Krogstad and about withdrawing his threat, Torvald
became happy because He would not fall into disgrace in front of the society.
He did not think Nora saved his life by borrowing money before he took this
letter.
- This
week we are cheek by jowl with Hamlet’s study guide and the play of Hamlet. I
learned information from general overview of Hamlet’s plot, characters
etc…There are two generations as old and young. Youngest ones represent
humanism. Hamlet and Fortinbras is in this generation. Although Hamlet
hesitates to get revenge and questions everything, Fortinbras gets revenge. I
didn’t understand where humanism is in Fortinbras. If I don’t consider this, I can say that
they resemble each other. After their fathers’ death, both have nothing.
- In general view, Hamlet resembles to Oedipus.
In both plays, heroes try to find out the murderer
of their fathers. At the beginning of the resolution of events, they become
suspicious for the murderer identity but they wanted to prove that. To talk
about the difference, Oedipus makes decisions quickly but Hamlet is
thinking to take revenge during the whole play and he cannot decide.
- One of the most interesting things in Hamlet is “acting” as thematic focus. There is a play within the play.
Besides that, the actors don’t
show the roles of their characters. For example, Gertrude is
acting like loving wife and Claudius is acting like a great King. When I thought
these acts, I found Hamlet so cleverly
written
work and thinking deeply.
- In the wedding ceremony, I admit that
Hamlet has right on his side. He is in melancholy. He used such words that
affected me in act I, scene II, line 10, “defeated joy”, “dropping eye”, “mirth
in funeral”. Hamlet’s father has died but that there is a wedding is very
contradictory and disappointing. The other contradiction is Leartes comes for
the wedding but Horatio comes for Hamlet. We can understand that who is in the
part of good or bad side. Moreover, Claudius doesn’t want to understand Hamlet’s
sorrow. He threatens Hamlet like a kid. He says in act I, scene II, line 94
“Tis unmanly grief”. Claudius is not gentle enough to understand this event.
- In Hamlet’s first soliloquy, he talks
about death and committing suicide. With these soliloquies, Shakespeare can
easily show the characters inner thoughts
to the audience or the reader.
Therefore, at the almost beginning of the play, I can conclude that Hamlet is
questioning his
environment
s
and some thoughts. If there weren’t a rule about committing suicide, it is forbidden in the religion and he didn’t know it was a way
of going to hell, Hamlet would take his own life.
- It is so weird that King Hamlet
doesn’t want to revenge on his wife. He
says to his son: “Taint not thy mind, nor let thy soul contrive/ Against thy
mother aught” in act I, scene V, line 85. King Hamlet also mentioned that she
will be judged in heaven. However, Hamlet is so hung up on her mother’s sexual
relationship with Claudius that he always mentions about
this as incestuous.
- In act II, we meet with Hamlet’s
madness. It is intentional and I think he can hide his feelings and sorrows by wearing a mad mask metaphorically..
Therefore to collect proof to find whether Claudius is the
murderer of his father or not becomes easier by acting like a mad. It
is a very good idea.
- I understand Hamlet’s feelings and he
explains his feelings by giving suitable examples from life. He says Denmark is
like a prison, in act II, scene II, line 245. Sometimes, people like me may
feel that this country or this living place is like a prison. It is because of
hopelessness and loneliness. Also when I miss the control of my life, I feel
like I’m a prisoner. Maybe, Hamlet may think that his life is out of his
control because he doesn’t want all of these: death of his father, leaving the
kingdom to Claudius or marriage of his mother etc…
- In act II, Hamlet arranges a play
which is about one brother kills the other. Hamlet and Horatio watch Claudius' reaction and they prove his guilt with this play. I found this idea very wise.
Therefore even here I can conclude that Hamlet cannot be really mad because a
crazy person cannot think any
of this.
Moreover, in this act, Horatio is remarkable for me. He is the person who is
trusted the most in the play by everybody. That is, he is witness of seeing the
ghost of the King and he doesn’t tell anybody. Moreover, he is witness of
seeing Hamlet’s uncle’s reaction. Unexpectedly Claudius trusts Horatio. To illustrate, in act IV, scene VII, after Leartes and Hamlet
fight during the burying Ophelia, Hamlet walks away and Claudius says to Horatio look after Hamlet.
- After Hamlet was questioning death, now he starts to question
existence by sating “To be or not to be…”in act III, scene I. He doesn’t know
which the best choice is
: to continue to suffer or killing
yourself. After some self discussions,
he is questioning why we choose to suffer. A few years ago, I read something on
the internet which is related to this suffering. There is Buddha who says life is suffering. We have both physical and physiological suffering .
Because of being life imperfect and complex, we have power to deal with these
sufferings. However, according to Hamlet, its reason is that we don’t know what
happens after the death. In act III, scene I, line 79, He says: “The
undiscovered country…” Death resembles an unknown country. This is a very nice
example while understanding his thoughts.
- Does Hamlet really love Ophelia? I wondered
that because I recognized there are some distance between Ophelia and Hamlet. I
think they are supposed to love each other. However, they don’t have any dating
or specific romantic dialogues about love. To illustrate, When
Polonius asks his daughter her thoughts about Hamlet, she says nothing
positive. Also Hamlet rejects Ophelia by criticizing her make-up in act III,
scene I, and line 145. This nominal love can be caused by parents, because
Gertrude says on the graveyard of Ophelia: “I hoped thou shouldst have been my
Hamlet’s wife” in act V, scene I, line 240.
- Recognition scene is the excellent. It
is during sword fighting between Hamlet and Leartes. Finally Hamlet tastes what
the death looks like. While he is dying, he says “the rest is silence”. I think
the silence here may represent that he is about to die and he cannot say
anything anymore.
- Miller
has same ideas with Aristotle in terms of features of tragedy but Miller
added the common man to it. We can understand from the title of his play “Death of a
Salesman” that salesman is a common man and anyone who is a
salesman is common. In Aristotle's time, tragedy generally related to high born people or for high class. However,
now we have no more kingdoms or such
important class differences. Maybe because of that, Miller used
common man. Everyone has the same brain and even the common man can understand
the same thing with what a high class person understands. The only difference
is background knowledge. I found these sentences very realistic.
- After I learned aboutMiller’s life
and some background knowledge of “Death of a Salesman,”, I asked myself why “American Dream” have a big role in people’s lives. I
couldn’t understand the reason of that people need more and more. I skipped to
think economic crisis and World War II. There were 2 classes in the society as
riches and poor so people had great target to reach. It is to be rich. When
they have much money, they will be happier. That is a consecutive dream.
- I read the whole essay of Miller and
I thought almost all heroes have tragic flaw. That is, Oedipus’ tragic flaw is hubris.
Then Death of Salesman came to my mind. Willy Loman’s tragic flaw is to be
unable to accept reality. Whole play is based on and continues with this flaw.
This flaw gives a shape to play.
- In the essay, tragedy is defined as the
consequence of man’s needs to evaluate himself. If man fails, it is because of
environment or society. These words appeared in
my mind while looking at an image with some sentences after reading the essay.
The image includes skeletons with black suits and all of them are the same in appearance.
There is a statement on them: “ Get a job. Go to work. Get married. Have
children. Follow fashion. Act normal. Walk on the pavement. Watch TV. Obey the
law. Save for your old age. Now repeat after me : ‘I am free’” Man is in such a
system that tension between the society and man becomes tragedy. Like Biff and
Willy, one of them
, Willy tries to fit
society’s requires such as American Dream. The other one, Biff tries not to
accept this commonness and then he find himself in the situation that he wants
to go Alaska with his brother to be rich. Whether you accept to adapt or not,
there can be tension.
- In the play, I didn’t understand why
Willy was obsessed with Biff. Biff has stolen some stuff
and he cannot lead an ordinary
life. All of his troubles are because of Willy. I think he
wasn’t a good father for his children. To illustrate, when Biff stole
basketball, Willy says “Coach will probably
congratulate you on the initiative”. This encourages him and as a child, he
thinks it is not a bad action. In the present, Willy and Biff always argue
about working and money. I thought Willy understood his fault during his day
dreaming so he wants to make his heart free about growing children well.
- In the class, it was said that this
play is like Willy’s mind. There are flashbacks and turns to present.
Therefore, it was very hard for me to follow.
- After reading Death of Salesman, I realized some
differences from Oedipus. Firstly, there is no chorus in that play. Secondly,
place is more than one place. Thirdly, Willy is jumping past time from the
present. These comparisons helped me to think deeply.
- I found Linda in the play repulsive.
The reason is she is almost aware of what’s happening to his husband. Also we
discussed this in the class. She doesn’t do anything. Moreover, she is
different from the others in that she has no dreams. She just
supports her husband by saying this patiently “You are the handsomest men in the
world.” Furthermore the money he earns
is not enough but she says he is doing well. However, I can say this, she is
more realistic than Willy because Willy lives in dreaming world. Linda
confesses she is aware that there is something wrong with her husband and she
says to her children “He won’t be all right …He is dying Biff.”. In some parts Willy says “I’m
alone”. Maybe because of his wife, he came to this situation. Linda doesn’t
talk too much or share her ideas with her husband so this and some lies push
es
him toward loneliness.
- I wondered what if Willy
had a stable job and average salary, would he be dead now ? According
to me, he wouldn’t be but he would have same complex life with full of day
dreaming. Maybe the stress made him so unrealistic person. American Dream
requires working hard. When he works hard, he wouldn’t be satisfied with his
work. He would always want much money and also their needs would increase with
their developing life conditions.
- I learned during the lesson, Solon is
asked who the happiest person is. Solon’s answer is quite convincing that your
materials may fly away at any moments and proper thing is death but honorable
death, like defending your country or someone. I can say that Willy is the
happiest person because his stress was gone when he died and he died for
providing his family a better life with the life insurance.
- Sophocles’ Oedipus the King
starts with plague. It is a
sickness and if this pollution hadn’t happened, Oedipus wouldn’t have wanted to
find out who is the murderer of Laius. Also the play is arranged around cause and effect so that
each event cannot be separated from each other. For example, because of plague ,
Oedipus sent Creon to Apollo to ask solution. In line 107, we can see the
solution which is to find the murderer of Laius. Oedipus goes to Teiresias and
it goes on like that. Moreover I like word changing in the play. To illustrate,
Teiresias is the blind man but he is the one who sees the truth. In contrast,
Oedipus is the healthy man and he has bright eyes but he is the one who cannot
see the truth that he is the murderer of his real father. It is clear irony in
line 457.
- Who is the guiltiest in the play? This was asked by Mr. Boyd in the lesson. I answered it quickly as “Oedipus”. However,
when I think the whole play deeply,
the
misdeed starts at the beginning times which are before Oedipus was born. In line
777, Jocasta says she let her husband
whatever do with the son. She didn’t prevent the King about killing her son.
Therefore
, she is the murderer, too. She decided
that intentionally. However, Oedipus didn’t know the man he killed is his
father. If he had known, he wouldn’t have done such a cruel thing.
- I started to wonder about Jocasta’s
character. She was a loyal wife and she applied whatever Laius said. On the
contrary, she always comes out against Oedipus while he is trying to reveal the murderer. As she refuses the prophecies and she
tells don’t pay attention those sayings like in line 1040. Moreover, she is
such a woman that when Oedipus blamed Creon as murderer, she begs Oedipus to
save Creon’s life. She didn’t do the same thing for her child and she sent her
son to death in cold blood.
- While
we were learning Ancient Greek Theatre’s origins, Mr. Boyd asked whether TV
shows or movies affect us. The reason of asking this question is
that in those times people
realized the theater influenced them. I agree with those people. That is,
nowadays there are a lot of TV serials and some people who watch them
internalize actors’ roles. For example, in an episode, there was a woman
who had a love affair with another woman’s husband. When this woman goes
outside in real life, some on
the street shout at her because they believe her character is like her role in
the episode.
- I wonder how this theater or TV shows
can affect us so deeply. For example, if one of my friends asks me to change some of my traits,
I may ignore him/ her. I think this great impact is due to the fact
that visual things like theater have resemblance with our lives.
- After the lesson, a question came to
my mind. It was why the actors had masks in Ancient Greek Theater.
To illustrate, if one had to be a woman, he could wear girl costumes and use
make up. That is enough. When I came to my room, I searched that on the
internet and I found some information about this. There are a lot of reasons
but the best reason which is acceptable for me is that the audience focused on
his actions not his appearance such as his face. Also using masks are more
convenient because the actors can change their roles without losing time by
changing just the masks.
- Through
reading “the Poetics of Aristotle”, Aristotelian unities appeared
as time, place
and action in a tragedy. I think these are very elegant ideas. That is
,
Time has to be in 24 hours in a tragedy according to Aristotle and this makes
the play clearer. Moreover, the play looks
like actual life by limiting it with one day. The other one is place. The whole
play is at one place. Therefore, actors don’t have to change background and
scene can be arranged effectively and glitteringly. The last one is action.
There should be one aim in the play . Thanks to that, audience focuses on
one thing and they don’t have to try to understand from what they should take
lesson. I like these unities. Oedipus is the best example for it.
- Aristotle put “plot” as the
first feature of a tragedy, but why? He
explains it as “the soul of a tragedy” (pg:4, 2nd parag. ). Maybe it is because
of that plot forms the play. It is not just full of acts and scenes; also it
contains ways to show the play better.
- I
thought Janie had a very imaginary and creative mind that she had another world
in her mind. She described the nature or
saw it in a different way. For example,
in chapter 2, under the pear tree, she described marriage by referring
bees. Then, the narrator asked,
“Where were the singing bees for her?”
These bees could be the symbol for men.
That is, she looked at the nature from her specific point of view and
commenting on the natural events according to her world. She wanted to be with a man who was
romantic. The other example was in
chapter 4, Joe Starks said, “Call me Jody lak you do sometime.” I understood this Janie established another
name for Joe or she made a reduction for his name. This showed again that Janie interpreted his
name according to her world. She wanted
to say sometimes Jody, so she called him as Jody.
- While reading the novel, from time
to time, I got upset. My first sadness
was that Janie had to get married Logan at the end of chapter 3, and she
understood marriage did not make love. I
was sorry for her because she wanted to marry having a love relationship with
her husband. The other time I got upset for her was that Jody wanted her to tie her hair up. She was dominated by a man who Janie thought
she loved him once. Last disappointing
moment was the scene of that Janie killed Tea Cake, in chapter 19. These sentences were very emotional while
reading it “It was the meanest moment of eternity. A minute before she was just a scared human
being fighting for its life.”
- I like Janie’s some thoughts. In the novel, she was not interest in political issues.
Instead of this, she was interested in happiness and
love. She spent her life without
thinking any social problem or politics.
Because of this, Janie could not be happy with Jody. When she was with her friend Mrs. Turner, Tea
Cake heard that Mrs. Turner wanted Janie to meet her lighter brother in chapter
16. Then, he did not allow Janie to see
Mrs. Turner again. Janie followed what he said although she liked her as a friend. I thought, if a person gives up her friend
for her boyfriend, she must love him madly.
Alternatively, Janie wanted to be just happy and she did not want to
discuss this with Tea Cake, so she accepted his idea.
- Tea Cake was a liar. He stole Janie’s money and lied about it in
chapter 13. Then, gambling appeared in
the novel. I thought, Tea Cake spent all
her money on card games, but he lost and he did not dare to say this loss. He wanted to gain Janie’s love and trust
again, so he proposed to gain lost money from gambling. Last semester, I learned from my drama
analysis lesson that gambling can be a reference for the chance. You cannot control the cards and you cannot
always win. To win, you should try more
and more or play more. This gambling
looked like Janie’s life. She tried to
find love. She seemed playing gambling
on her life. Finally, she found her love
with Tea Cake. I understood that a lie
or chance might affect our lives in some way.
- I remembered The Great Gatsby in which we witnessed to racism. For example, Tom said on page 16, in chapter
1, “Well, it’s a fine book… The idea is if we don’t look out the white race
will be- will be utterly submerged. It’s
all scientific stuff; It’s been proved.”
He talked about white people should not mix with dark people. Like this
novel, Their Eyes Were Watching God had
also some racism examples. One of them
was in chapter 16. Mrs. Turner disliked
blacks and she said “Mis’ Woods, Ah have often said to mah husband, Ah don’t
see how uh lady like Mis’ Woods can stand all them common niggers round her
place all de time” She loved Janie
because of her kind behaviors and hair style.
However, she hated Tea Cake because he had dark skin. Moreover, in chapter 19, a man said while
gathering dead bodies “Don’t dump dem bodies in de hole lad dat! Examine every
last one of’ em and find out if they’s white or black…They makin’ coffins fuh
all de white folks.” This was a clear example for racism. Even their dead bodies were not considered
the same as white bodies.
- I think the scene of dog’s biting
Tea Cake could be a symbol for the fight between white and dark skinned
people. The dog was described in chapter
18 as powerful and angry. In those
times, white people were angry because they thought they were superior to dark
people and they did not want to be seen in the same status with dark
people. If I think the dog as white
people, the dog gave harm to its environment and bit Tea Cake who has dark
skin. Tea Cake was described as over
tired. It could be a reference for all dark
skinned people that they were tired of being threatened as slavery by white people.
- Again, like The Great Gatsby, this novel remembered me the class
difference. Gatsby and Myrtle wanted to
be like high class Daisy and Tom. They made reaching the high class an aim for
their lives. In Their Eyes Were Watching God, at the end of chapter 6, Mrs. Robbins
said “… Mist’ Starks, please gimme uh lil piece uh meat fur me and mah
chillun.” Jody was on the high class
because he provided the Eatonville lamps, post office etc… and he earned a lot of
money from this. The other people were
hungry. This was a difference. The other proof was spittoon. Not all the people had a spittoon, so it was
the symbol of prosperity.
- At the beginning of the novel, men’s
dream like looking ships at a distance was told. In chapter 18, the dialogue between Bohaman
boys and Tea Cake was “Indians don’t know much…
De white folks ain’t gone nowhere.
Dey oughta know if it’s dangerous.”.
Tea Cake as a man looked at Indians’ departure at a distance. There was a coming hurricane and he decided
to stay by thinking that white people knew everything right. Tea Cake did not move. The nature is controlled by God, so we can
think of the nature as a symbol of God.
It was told in the novel when the hurricane appeared “Six eyes were
questioning God.” For example, people
forget God sometimes and when they feel hopeless, they rely on God. Tea Cake should not have waited for other
white people’s departure. He had a mind
and he could have acted according to his mind.
However, they understood nature’s power, God’s power, so they started to
worry about their lives now.
- We
moved to Jazz age. In this age, there
were people who love parties, hanging out and smoking all the time. I have not imagined this kind of life until
watching the video about this age in the lesson. Our guest writer was Fitzgerald with his
novel of The Great Gatsby. In the first chapter, I met Nick and his life
a bit. I think Fitzgerald wanted us to
think Nick was a reliable person. He
came from a good and wealthy family, he was in the war, he graduated from Yale
and he wanted to work in Eastern to have a career. All these things put a person in a good
quality, so we can trust this person.
Unlike Holden in The Catcher in
the Rye, Nick told us events
that he did not witness. For example,
the conversation between Wilson and Michaelis was not witnessed by Nick. Nick said in chapter 8, on page 171, “… a car
stopping outside. It was one of the
watchers of the night before who had promised to come back…” Therefore, this was a bit strange and how can
he know this in detail? Moreover, at the
beginning of the novel, Nick said “In consequence I’m inclined to reserve all
judgments…” However, throughout the
novel, Nick made judgments about people and he was affected by his feelings
while judging them. To illustrate, Nick
said for Myrtle in chapter 2, on page 28 that “… the thickish figure of a woman
blocked out the light from the office door.” Maybe, she was not so fat. When we considered that Daisy was Nick’s
cousin, I could say that he might be affected because Myrtle was Daisy’s
husband’s mistress. Although Nick seemed
reliable, he was not.
- While reading the novel, I could not
decide whether the following events were
a symbol of homosexuality or not. These
refer to the end of the chapter 2. Nick
said he just remembered this “I was standing beside his bed and he was sitting
up between the sheets, clad in his underwear…”
Moreover, these refer to the definition of Gatsby’s smile. Nick said in chapter 3, “It was one of those
rare smiles with a quality of eternal reassurance in it, that you may come
across four or five times in life.”
These showed the homosexuality.
However, when I looked at these from another perspective, these had another meaning.
In those times, people gave importance to money and they started to act
fake like fake smiles, fake conversations etc…
Because of this fake world, Gatsby’s smile could seem to Nick as a real
and natural one. Therefore, he could be
affected from this.
- In chapter 4, there was a huge list
with people, who were invited to the party.
I thought these names could have a meaning. If they had not had, there would not have
been such a long list of names. Beaver
is an animal. I suspected from this
surname. Then, I looked at other
surnames’ meanings from the dictionary.
Becker is a European fish, Leech is a kind of parasite, and Blackbuck is
an Indian antelope. These all surnames
are the names of the animals. This guest
list told us something, which was uncovered in the novel. When all guests came to the party, they were
drinking and eating too much, they were hanging out with other partners despite
having already one partner. They were
out of humanity. They acted more like
animals. Fitzgerald chose these surnames
and these surnames gave the novel a mystery.
Maybe, my thoughts about surnames can be a bit nonsense, but I believe
this had some meaning.
- One of the symbols in the novel was
T.J. Eckleburg. The valley of ashes was
mostly in the tone of grey with the exception of Eckleburg’s blue eyes. These colors can be considered as some
feelings there. For example, blue
reminds us positive feelings like trustworthy.
When I think of the blue of oceans or sky, it gives me comfort. His eyes were
smaller than his body, so I can understand that there was so little trustworthy
there. However, when I think of gray in
psychology meaning, it is between black and white. Its meaning can be authority or conservative
area. All things in the valley of ashes
were gray and this means there were some hiding truths like cheating the
husband and escaping from being the murderer of Myrtle etc… However, this gray covered this truth. Therefore, this was not emerged by Wilson.
- I think Gatsby has the feeling of
loneliness in the crowd and he isolated himself from his environment. However, there was one character that was the
loneliest in the novel, according to me.
This was Nick. At the end of
chapter 1, Nick said the last sentence as “Then I was lying half asleep in the
cold lower level of the Pennsylvania Station…”
At the end of chapter 5, Nick said, “Then I went out of the room and the
marble steps into the rain, leaving them there together.” Most of the chapters ended with Nick’s
loneliness. He indicated this for each chapter.
- I have not seen a character like
Tom. He was so selfish that he wanted all women for just himself.
He treated them as objects. When he needed Myrtle, he
called her to come to the train station. When he got angry to her, he hit
her. To talk about Daisy, both Gatsby and Tom considered her as an object.
Gatsby believed when he was wealthy, he would obtain Daisy. He did not
even think of her life. Tom did not want to be alone, so he kept Daisy in
his pocket. However, this was also the choice of Daisy. She said
about her daughter in the first chapter, “… I hope she’ll be a fool- that’s the
best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool.” She
knew that Tom was cheating on her. She did not go away because Tom gave
her his prosperity. Therefore, she wanted her daughter to be like herself
who chose prosperity.
- When I finished the book, I sympathized with Gatsby. He wanted to
get Daisy and he set out to get her. He did illegal things, but his
desire and passion was so strong that he did not even think of what these
illegal things can cause. Tom was in good condition because his
prosperity came from his powerful family. Gatsby tried to get this wealth
alone.
- In the lesson, we said that Gatsby followed American
Dream. There were dark sides of dreams. In real life, sometimes I
do something I want, but it does not give the feeling, which supposed to
be. Gatsby gained a wealthy life, but he was still unhappy. He
thought when Daisy saw him with this wealth; she would come with him
immediately. According to me, Gatsby’s first fault was he showed himself
as if he was rich. The other fault was his desire to change. He
wanted to put himself into something, which did not reflect Gatsby
himself. For example, he had a large library. I do not know if he
read or not. He wanted to show himself as sophisticated. Therefore,
besides American dream, this novel can be related to the identity. The
answers of how we can see ourselves (like Nick sees himself honest or Gatsby
sees himself wealthy and equal to Tom) and how environment can affect us could
be found in the novel after reading it .
- I finished the book and I started to think what did Gatsby “the great”. I
found an answer. He was rich and gave parties. He had a car and a
luxury house. Society knew Gatsby with his parties and his wealth.
This “the great” was seen by the society. Actually, he was not
great. He committed crimes and he was poor without illegal things.
The novel’s title was a bit paradoxical when I thought in this way .
- During the discussions in the class, I found something about curtains.
Nick told about curtains in so detail that he said in chapter 1 “The only
completely stationary object in the room was an enormous couch on which two
young women were buoyed up as though…” I thought it could be a
message. Curtains were moving, so something or someone can move on their
lives. However, others, like couch, cannot move. Like Gatsby and
Myrtle, even they wanted to change their fate, it did not work. They died
like unborn child.
- While I was
reading the book, I thought it was just related to a boy’s foolish
thoughts. Also, I was not used to see these kinds of slang words in
the novel. For example, at the beginning of the novel, Holden used the
word of “goddam” or “phony”. It was weird. However, I appreciated
the author because so few people can dare to write the events so naturally and
clearly. When I started to think and see the life of Holden, using
slang words did not seem so weird. Especially boys in those ages use
this kind of language. I felt what Holden told to us was true.
However, this feeling turned to complexity for me in chapter 8. That is,
he lied a lot to the people. For example, he lied about his name and life
of Ernest to Ernest’s mother in chapter 8. Then, lies came in an
order. Therefore, now I believe Holden was contradictory.
- After the
drama analysis lesson, novel analysis seemed to me a bit hard. It is not
just because of novels’ length, also because of characters. The first
novel, which was The Catcher in the Rye, has many characters in
each chapter beside of the hero, Holden. Even in the first chapter, I met
Old Selma Thurmer, Old Spencer, D.B., his parents, Robert Tichener, Paul
Campbell, Mr. Zambesi etc… All of them were not main characters. To look
from the good side, there was also so detailed information that I could
visualize easily what Holden wrote. For example, in chapter 11, he told
something about Jane. It was: “When he did, I asked Jane what the hell
was going on. She wouldn't answer me, then… Then all of a
sudden, this tear plopped down on the check board.” I imagined this scene
like a movie scene. Therefore, I thought that this book should be a movie.
- In chapter 9, Holden wanted to call someone. This
situation, which was an attempt to call someone to talk, appeared in other
chapters, too. For example, he said “… as soon as I was inside, I could
not think of anybody to call up.” In chapter 15, he again wanted to call
someone, but it was Jane. However, he called Sally. I felt that
Holden wanted to fill his times with somebody. He did not want to be
alone. Maybe, he was afraid of loneliness. Therefore, he felt
himself in the need of some other people.
- I was wondering what Holden felt after
getting kicked out from the school and while going to New
York. I thought, he had no goal in his mind for his education life and
his future life. Therefore, he might have thought the feeling of being
independent. In chapter 1, he went to his history teacher’s home. He took
his own decisions there. In addition, he went to New
York because he did not want to be or feel like adults although it was
impossible. He criticized the adults all the time.
- I love Holden as a teenager
because I thought my teenage years and I was a bit like Holden. He was
rebellious against adults, his parents and his brother D.B. I was like
him, too. Salinger showed the features of teenagers very well in the novel.
Years ago, we thought as teenagers, adults could not be able to understand us
and their speeches about our future were like a fish story. Moreover, Holden thought Spencer
did not listen to him and Holden dreamed another thing while Spencer was
talking to him in chapter 2. These are the perfect examples of teenagers.
- I found Holden’s thoughts about
adults out of balance. He said he was the most terrific liar in chapter
3; however, he blamed adults to be phony and liar. This showed he was
also at the edge of being an adult. He always saw bad sides of being an
adult. For example, Stradlater was a womanizer and his brother D.B.
left them. These kinds of behaviors wounded on Holden.
- In the class, we discussed if
Holden was talking to a psychologist or somebody else. I thought he was
talking to us. For example, when I wrote some events on my diary, I used
words like I was talking to the diary. I personalized it.
Therefore, Holden might have seen the readers of the book like his psychologist
or someone who listen to him all the time. Holden said in chapter 1:
“Don’t even mention to me.” and “If you really want to hear about
it…” These kinds of sentences can be used in diaries, too. We do
not write all we have done for each day. We write just important
days. Holden’s adventures after kicking out from the school would be
important for him, so he did not mention about his parents.
- It was very interesting that
Holden used slang words even for the girls except nuns. He mentioned
about nuns as innocent people. For example, in chapter 17, Holden said to
Sally that “You give me a royal pain in the ass, if you want to know the
truth.” These were very bad words for a girl. In contrast, he was
careful with his language with the nuns. He did not want to talk to them
about Romeo and Juliet because the play had some sexy parts.
- I recognized that Holden was
sometimes a dreamer. In contrast, Sally was more realistic. On page
71, Holden said “How would you like to get the hell out of here?
... We’ll stay in these cabin camps and stuff like that till the dough
runs out…” Sally objected to him: “We are both practically
children. And did you ever stop to think what you’d do if you didn’t get
a job when your money ran out? ...” Despite of Sally’s realistic
point of view, I liked Holden’s thoughts. They were full of honesty and
related to the nature; however, his decisions about whatever he wanted to do in
a minute were a bit lunacy. Maybe, this was because of his youthfulness.
- I wondered why Holden collected
broken pieces of the record in chapter 20. Normally, when something is
broken into pieces, we do not take it. My thoughts about Holden were
changing in each chapter I read. Now, I thought Holden was an unusual
character because he gave an importance to the things which other people did
not pay attention. This record may be the symbol of teenagers like the ducks.
No one cared teenagers who were very fragile at these ages. Because of this,
pieces of the record were not nonsense for Holden. He paid his attention
to the pieces unlike adults.
- In the class, we discussed about
the color of Holden’s hat. It was red and the symbol of security and like
his sister’s hair. After I heard and notice these symbols in the class, I
remembered that red color have some places in the novel. In chapter 11,
Holden told us about Jane and her past. Jane was important for him.
When she cried, he kissed her whole face except her mouth. In addition,
Jane’s tears dropped on the red square while they were playing the game.
The other one was that Jane was wearing red and white sweater. As a color
of red, it might have this kind of importance for Holden. Maybe, he
remembered Jane.
