Always #LikeAGirl

Doing anything  like a girl should be a good thing.

Jumping into 21st Century Learning

The purpose behind this blog is to provide a space to extend our conversation beyond the physical classroom.  It provides the opportunity to reflect on ideas and experiences related to our studies and for you to comment on each others' reflections.  It also gives your writing a real audience and reminds us that, when used responsibly, the internet offers an excellent opportunity for exploration and collaboration. 

Adapted from: http://flic.kr/p/pAKFm

We will have two official bloggers a week who will each provide at least one post, but everyone should read the weekly posts and comment when you are inspired to contribute. I encourage you to include photos, videos, and/or hyperlinks to related articles in your blog.  Any photos should be Creative Commons licensed or labeled "free to use or share even commercially" and a citation should be included underneath.  

The only contributing members of the blog will be invited by me.  This includes your classmates and possibly other members of the SVA community if we see fit down the road. 

We will come up with guidelines for blog posts together, but here is a starting place.

• Stay focused.  Remember: the blog is meant to help us think about topics from or related to class. 
• Only post info you would want everyone to know. 
• Use appropriate language, grammar, and spelling. 
• Be kind. No discriminatory, cruel, or obscene posts will be tolerated. 

Happy Blogging!

Are You Braver Than a 3rd Grader?

             This week, 12S has been discussing The Metamorphosis. As a modernist text, it lacks a typical "happy ending,"instead offering a rather depressing end coupled with a strong message.  One of the most depressing aspects of the story is that despite their disgusting treatment of Gregor, the protagonist, he continues to crave the love and attention of his family. In fact, he is desperate for it. Now, to be fair, if you woke up one day to see that your brother was a giant beetle who could not speak you would be pretty grossed out, wouldn't you? However, their treatment of Gregor after his transformation and their sudden ability to work and earn money for themselves shows that they had in fact just been lazy and taking advantage of Gregor the entire time. 

              Now, a quick question... Did anyone else think of James and the Giant Peach? As soon as I heard "giant bug" the image of the story popped into my head, not surprising as I read the book about 100 times. But I digress... For those who don't know the story, it's about a little boy named James, who is mistreated by horrible aunts, until one day, a magic spell creates a gigantic peach in his yard. James soon discovers a group of giant, magically enlarged bugs (a spider, silkworm, centipede, grasshopper, a ladybug and earthworm, to be exact), and with them he goes on a wonderful adventure, ending up in New York. Like poor Gregor, little James had been made to work like a servant for his family members, who took advantage of him. And the whole giant bug similarity is hard to ignore. However, as a children's story, it lacks the bleak outlook and sad ending. In the story, James ends up living happily ever after in New York City with his bugs, while Gregor knowingly, though not all together willingly succumbs to injuries inflicted by his father, as a last ditch effort in getting some sort of recognition from his family. So why did James get a happy ending, while Gregor died alone, locked on a dark room? James recognized his aunts for the jerks that they were, and at his first opportunity left the house, to experience something outside of the bleak world he shared with them. Perhaps, as a little boy, he still had that childlike sense of wonder, and hope, which have him the courage to go out on his own. It is this first step that leads to many other wondrous things for him, and he learns that he is better than his aunts treated him. Gregor, a grown man who works a job he dislikes to take care of his parents and sister, is most likely too wrapped up in the reality of the world to daydream about its many possibilities.... 

               But I'm just saying, if you can one day wake up as a giant bug, isn't anything possible? Imagine if Gregor had just left, in the middle of the night, and went to live in the sewers or some other bug friendly zone. Due to his size, intelligence, and ability to "speak" like a bug, he probably could have ended up being some sort of bug king, revered by all his little big subjects! Now, that would have been making the best of unfortunate circumstances! But, alas, it is Gregor's very human need to be accepted by those that shun him that keeps him in that house, and ultimately causes his destruction. The Metamorphosis offers up a lesson about what the need for the acceptance and approval of others can do to someone. It is never beneficial to bend over backwards in attempts to make people love, or accept you. In Gregor's case, it was not even necessary, because his family ends up being better off without him, acting as if a huge burden had been lifted off their backs! If ever confronted with a situation in which you are not appreciated or accepted by others, and are not treated with the respect and dignity you deserve, be like James! Leave, go out and find a new environment, with people who care for you. To spend your time trying to fit into the mold of what others expect from you is an exercise in futility. Why try to change the minds of people who are not open to having their minds changed? Why not find something new? Why not move on to greener pastures, as they say...or in Gregor's case, stinkier sewers. There's a niche for everyone in the world, and if you know that where you are, isn't it, then go out and find it!... Or, you can allow yourself to be beaten down on a daily basis by your environment. It's your choice, though I hope, it is an obvious one.

Unleash Your Inner Creature

"When Gregor Samsa woke up one morning from unsettling dreams, he found himself changed into a monstrous vermin."

       As I read the first lines of The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka, I tried to imagine what kind of "monstrous vermin" Gregor had become. It was hard for me to actually visualize the overnight transition, I tried to come up with some conclusions as to why and how this could happened to a seemingly normal person. My thoughts began to drift on to broader aspects of what this "metamorphosis" could be as I continued to read. I concluded that Gregor's metamorphosis was state of mind that enveloped his entire being, changing his physical humanness into a "monstrous vermin."  His change reminds me of  Rihanna's "We Found Love" music video that showed her  metamorphic state of mind that literally consumed her because she was so in love with that "Chris Brown wannabe".

      Out of all the animals and creatures in the world, why did Gregor manifest into a insect? To think that a man could be cast into the shadows of a permanent physical solitude. Imagine the type of creatures we would turn into on a daily basis if we had this type of "metamorphosis" power. Right now, I would probably turned into a honey bee since I'm always busy and I can never find time for things. What kind of creature can you see yourself changing to?

End of the Road

Althought we should be happy that there are very few classes left in our senior year, our English class has been slightly depressing. The modernist text, "The Metamorphosis" forces us to realize the injustices and harsh realities of our society through a man who transforms into a "monstrous vermin." While reading, we've frequently discussed the mistreatment Gregor faces along with our sympathy for him. The sadness we feel at his situation makes me think of how we as a people usually feel sadness when it is already too late. Gregor has already transformed into a bug which makes it easier for us to see how much he has been walked all over and isolated from his own family. Even though his family did some particularly heinous actions toward him, we are sometimes guilty of doing similar things on a smaller scale.

One thing Gregor's family does is exclude him. He is only a part of the family as long as he can contribute. As members of today's society, we tend to be focused on our own agenda. This can sometimes cause us to be so wrapped up in our own lives, that we do not stop to assist and include others. This is not necessarily wrong but excluding people, intentionally or unintentionally, is a pretty mean thing. No one has it easy, and by isolating others it just makes it harder for them to feel accepted by their peers and society.

Another way Gregor is rejected by his family is when he can no longer work. This can be compared to having a friend for convenience. Sometimes people only come to certain people when they need a favor or something they have. Under the right circumstances, this can be acceptable, however, using someone for your own benefit without considering their feelings, is selfish and disrespectful.

Many of us are guilty of doing things to avoid the things we find socially unacceptable. Although we may not be as severe as Gregor's parents, we do have moments where we choose not to deal with the people who are to different or difficult to understand. Since almost all of us are going to college in the fall, I hope that we can shed these habits and be even more accepting people. We all felt saddened by Gregor's transformation and how it affected him, but we are forgetting that the individual injustices are what caused him to change into a bug. The sympathy we feel for Gregor should be the same sympathy we feel for all those we face injustice due to our own prejudices.

***the video is from "What Would You Do?" on ABC. This is one of the less serious topics, but it shows who sometimes a simple prejudice can cause issues and hurt others. Because white barbers are not accepted, he is subjected to discrimination.

This Could Be Our Revolution

"We alone can devalue gold 
 by not caring 
 if it falls or rises 
 in the market place. 
 Wherever there is gold 
 there is a chain, you know, 
 and if your chain 
 is gold 
 so much the worse 
 for you. 
 Feather,shells,
 and sea-shaped stones 
 are all as rare. 
This could be our revolution: 
 To love what is plentiful 
 as much as 
 what is scarce."

-Alice Walker


 While reading "The Bet" and "How Much Land Does a Man Need?", I was struck with a feeling of nostalgia. Memories of my eighth grade English class came rushing in and immediately I thought of this poem. Both "The Bet" and "How Much Land Does a Man Need?" teach us the dangers of seeking material wealth. No matter how much we have or how much week seek the end result is never satisfaction or happiness. The lawyer in the end of "The Bet," learns to "devalue gold." He realizes that the pursuit of earthly possessions is a pointless one. In his letter he says, "Everything is worthless, transient, illusory and as deceptive as a mirage." Those words could not be any truer. We go to school, to get a diploma, to get a degree, to get a job, while holding on to the false idea that we can satiate our wants with the wealth we might gain. But it's never enough. And it will never be enough. Our true desires cannot be bought. Like Pahom, we leave it all behind.

This is our chance to start a revolution. Let us devalue gold. Let us release the chains of greed that drag us to our grave. Whether rich or poor we face the same end. There's a choice to be made. This could be our revolution. To love what is plentiful as much as what is scarce.

Is Any Life Better Than No Life at All?

In "The Bet" by Anton Chekhov, there is a young lawyer who has imprisoned himself because he makes a statement saying, "The death penalty and life imprisonment are equally immoral. But if I had to chose between execution or being locked away for life, I'd opt for the second, without any doubt. Any sort of life's better than none at all"(960). The young lawyer made a bet know as "The Bet" with the banker, and this bet requires that the young lawyer will stay in the banker's lodge for fifteen years without any communication with the outside world. I do not know about you, but I would have kept my mouth shut and never taken it. While the lawyer is in confinement for fifteen years, he tries to search for an answer to this BIG question. Is any life better than no life at all? I believe everyone has their own opinion to this question. Ms. Whitley asked this question as an exit ticket. This question is constantly replaying in my mind because I think a lot of us would jump to yes because anything is better than being in a grave. But is it really? After fifteen years, before his time was almost up, the lawyer writes a letter to the banker, and it basically says he has attained so much wisdom and knowledge but he could not answer his dying question. He says, "You may be proud, wise and handsome, but death will wipe you from the face of the earth, together with the mice under the floorboards" (964). We can infer from this statement that the lawyer believes anyone can have all the wisdom, be prideful, and beautiful but it all means nothing because death with kill you and the earth will go on. Reading this I agreed for a bit, but then I realized the world will go on but it is what you do to leave a mark on this earth that will never be wiped away from this earth. According to the lawyer, no life is better than life at all. What do you believe? I think its what you do with the life you have will determine wither or not your life was worth living. The lawyer was dissatisfied because he was looking in the wrong place to find a answer only he himself and his actions to impact this world could answer. I want to know what everyone thinks, tell me.

  

God vs. Mephistopheles

This week we began to read Faust.  In the prologue, we were able to see the relationship between God and Mephistopheles.  Honestly, in my opinion, Mephistopheles reminds me of Satan. Does anyone else feel that way?  He has an interesting relationship with God. It's strange but the rivalry over humans between God and Mephistopheles seems like a game. "What do you wager? You will lose him yet,/Provided you give me permission/To steer him gently the course I set." Mephistopheles mentions a wager, which makes this seem like a game between rivals. It is almost as if there is some sort bet over who is to be tempted by evil and who is to remain good. The relation between them is really complex. They are both discussing Faust's fate. Mephistopheles decides to try to tempt Faust and God allows him to do so. As it was said in class, it shows that even in the end God has the ultimate control and makes the final decisions.  The only question I have is why? Why would God allow one of his people to be tempted and corrupted? It is interesting to be able to see an interpretation of  how God thinks. The way the prologue ended made me want to know what is going to happen in the story.  I really want to find out the reason God has allowed Mephistopheles to tempt Faust.

The Link Between Rationalism and Romanticism

https://m.flickr.com/photos/kawkawpa/3477365086/in/search?q=brain%20vs%20the%20heart&mt=all&w=all

     During the Age of Rationalism, there was a constant search for enlightenment. It was a time to question any and everything. Questions led to answers which ultimately led to a better understanding of things. Many famous philosophers were able to write and share their ideas with the public during this time. It was a time to inspire and be inspired. The thirst for knowledge was at an all time high. People grew so passionate about learning. So why does Romanticism reject the ideas of Rationalism, if the Age of Rationalism bore some of the best erudite of our time? During the Age of Romanticism, what the heart felt meant more than analyzing every single situation. I think it is safe to say that if you like overthinking and overanalyzing situations, the concept of Romanticism would probably not appeal to you. I think we can all agree that overthinking a situation before or after it has happened can suck all the fun right out of it! Instead of thinking things through, Romantics lived spontaneously. You know that sappy saying, "Follow your heart," yeah well that is probably something that the Romantics would have encouraged. In addition, Romantics were very fond of nature. They took out of their day to smell the flowers and embrace the beauty of nature. Let's not forget the admiration Shug Avery also felt for nature back when we read The Color Purple! "I think it pisses God off when you walk by the color purple in a field and don't notice it." Shug would have fit in so well with the Romantics! Haha

     The connection I am trying to make, however, is between the two poems we read that were written in two completely different time periods. Paradise Lost which was written by John Milton during the Age of Rationalism and "Ode: Intimations of Immortality" which was written by William Wordsworth during the Age of Romanticism. Although I discussed how these time periods contrasted each other, the poems written during these two times share many of the same ideas. The Age of Rationalism and the Age of Romanticism are linked through these poems/stories.

     In Paradise Lost, Adam and Eve must face the fact that they have lost something that they will never be able to get back: their innocence. Similarly, in Ode (too long to keep retyping lol) Wordsworth's grief is over the fact that he will never be able to experience the glory, innocence and purity that he once possessed as a child. Both poems deal with the lost of things that were of great value. Things we will never be able to repossess. Second, in Paradise Lost we see how blissfully ignorant Adam and Eve were. They had no responsibilities, burdens, or anything to worry about. We are able to see the same type of ignorant bliss in the children Wordsworth describe in his Ode poem. I think it is fair to even compare children and infants to Adam and Eve before they experienced their downfall. Before growing up and losing our glory(or forgetting it perhaps), we were celestial beings like Adam and Eve once were. When they ate the forbidden fruit, it forced them to open their eyes to how chaotic the world really is. Similarly, when children grow up, it is the same as them eating the forbidden fruit, except they are not given a choice. Whether they like it or not, they are forced to see, understand, and even experience all the things wrong in the world. The new knowledge that the forbidden fruit (also my metaphor for growing up) provided in both of these poems seems to hurt us more than it actually benefits us ("knowledge is pain"). Lastly, I noticed how both poems deal with the loss of innocence, but they also deal with what we gain after our loss. In Paradise Lost, we gain Free Will. The freedom to be able to think for ourselves and make our own decisions. In Ode, we gain a "philosophic mind." The ability to understand complexed matters, think deep thoughts, and provide solutions to problems is not something that most children are able to do. It is something that we learn to do as we go through the many obstacles we must face in life(which involves us losing our innocence). It is ultimately up to you whether to decide if what we gained is better than what we loss or vice versa. It is all a matter of opinion so there really is no right answer. These poems make it evident that after every tragic loss, there is a chance to rise. It is up to you how you choose to see this acquired knowledge. Is it burden or a gift? Or is just another gray area?

Rushing Our Lives

Ode: Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood

In Ode: Intimations of Immortality, we are able to see how Wordsworth has a strong feeling about childhood. He says that children try to grow up so fast and he does not understand why would they want to grow up so quickly and begin the struggles that adults have to eventually face. In stanza 7, he says that children play pretend funeral and wedding. As we discussed this in class, I realized I used to do the same thing. As a child, I was always playing pretend cooking. Where I would get mud and rocks and pretended I was making mashed potatoes with meat. Others days, I would pretend I was a doctor and I would prescribe my patients (teddy bears) with pills (sweet tarts) for their terrible cough. I remember I wanted to grow up so bad and do all the "cool" things adults were able to do. Now, however, I realized growing up will not be as fun as I thought it would be when I was 5 years old. As children we are not able to see and appreciate how precious life is before we are faced with all of life's struggles. Therefore, I believe we should enjoy life instead of rushing everything we do, rather just sit back and enjoy an episode of Spongebob Squarepants.

Shatter Me Book Review

This week in English class,  shared our independent reading books.  I read Shatter Me by Tahereh Mafi.  It is about Juliette who inadvertently killed a little boy with her deadly touch.  Ever since that moment, Juliette was locked away for 264days and deemed a danger to the public.  That is, until the Reestablishment decided she was useful in their quest for control.  The actual idea of the book is amazing but I was not impressed with the result of that idea. One problem I had with the book was the writing.  I felt as though the  author was trying be fancy with her description of things but it came off as  much.  For example, "He shifts  and my eyes shatter into thousands if pieces that ricochet around the room, capturing a million snapshots, a  million moments in time.  Flickering images faded with age, frozen thoughts hovering precariously in dead space, a whirlwind of memories that slice through my soul."  This is how things are constantly described throughout the book and sometimes it feels as though it's too much.  My next problem is with the main character Juliette.  Juliette is so insecure it becomes annoying.  Most of the book seems to be about her complaining, asking why she's alive; she wishes she could die and she doesn't deserve love, etc.  It seems as though every one has to keep reassuring her that they love her and she doesn't deserve to die including one  her love interest, Adam.  He has to continually tell her that he loves her but she  can't seem to grasp what he is saying.  She acts so weak throughout the book and when you finally thinks she grows a backbone she goes back to being insecure.  Juliette actually reminds me of Bella from twilight.  Just like Bella, Adam has to continually be by her side to protect her and just like Bella, she needs someone to continue to reassure her about  everything.  I was expecting that once she gained  courage and had a backbone we were going to see this strong character like Katniss from the hunger games but the total opposite happens. Overall, I did not enjoy this book. There were so many times where I just wanted to throw this book away and I honestly don't recommend it. 

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/

Eve Gone Bad

This week in class we finished up with "Paradise Lost," by John Milton by talking about the change in Eve. As seen in the reading, the serpent manipulates Eve into eating the forbidden fruit. Eve obviously made a poor choice but she believed she developed knowledge and free will. Now at the end of "Paradise Lost," Eve is debating whether she tell Adam about the powers of the forbidden fruit or should keep it to herself. Eve is starting to have the same concept of freedom as Satan when she says, "And render me more equal, and perhaps, a thing not undesirable, sometime Superior: for, inferior, who is free?" (822 line 445)Eve has gone bad! Now she feels that she should keep the secret of the forbidden away from her partner so she can become Superior. However, Eve realizes something. "This may be well: but what if God have seen and death ensue? Then I shall be no more, and Adam, wedded to another Eve, shall live with her enjoying..." (822 line 448). In other words, she's saying what if God had seen her eat the fruit and punishes her? Then Adam will be wed "to another Eve" and she does not want that. She realizes she has worked against God's wishes and knows she will be punished for that. But then, she realizes she can't leave her baby Adam behind. So she finally comes to the conclusion that she's just going to bring Adam down with her.
 

This brings me to my connection. Have you ever done something you know you were not suppose to do? Then you try to blame someone else for it? Or even bring them down with you because you refuse to be punished alone? If you have done this then you can easily understand Eve's thought process. For instance, I babysit my cousins all the time. I have noticed that when one of them does something wrong they blame on their siblings. I know they mean no harm to each other (let's hope not) but they just do not want to be on "time out" by themselves. This can be seen through Eve's decision. She does not want to be on "time out" alone.

 

Hamlet Characters and their Psychological Issues !!

As we began to wrap up Hamlet, I made a connection between the characters and Psychological and Personality Disorders that I learned about in Psychology of Personality with Ms.Kenney. For one , I think its quite obvious that Hamlet suffers from depression. He is in a serious state of depression at the beginning of the play when we first see him . That depression then turns to anger which causes him to be violent and that violence caused him to kill Polonius. It seems to me like our friend Hamlet might also be a bit bipolar too. In Act III, we read his long soliloquy of him contemplating suicide. Then, he turns around in Act IV saying his thoughts will "be bloody" !! The image below features a man with half his face painted red and the other half painted black. This symbolizes Hamlet's two sides. The black is his depression and state of melancholy and the red is his violent and vengeful side. 

Another character who suffers from a disorder is Claudius. Claudius clearly has Narcissistic Personality Disorder. We are all familiar with the Greek Myth of Narcissus and how he was forced to stare at his reflection in the lake forever until he died. Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a personality disorder in which the individuals who have it are all about themselves, lack empathy for others , and obsess over power.If this isn't Claudius then I don't know what is !!!!! Claudius definitely cares only for himself. He lacks empathy for Hamlet when Hamlet is grieving the death of his father. He also obsesses over power . This is evident because he kills his own brother !!! HIS OWN FLESH AND BLOOD! Lastly, in the final death scene when he gets stabbed with the sword he tries to brush it off like he's invisible. Ugh!!!!! The nerve of this guy !!! 

What do you ladies think? Do you agree with me? Do you disagree? Why or Why not? Do you think any other characters have disorders? 

http://now-here-this.timeout.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/hamlet.jpg

Shakespeakerean/Modern "Slut" Shaming

In this blog, I chose to connect Ophelia to many young girls now. Ophelia faces the female stereotype that makes young women a commodity, worthless for being with men before marriage. Polonius says, "From this time be something scanter of your maiden presence. Set your entreatments at a higher rate..." Here, he is reducing Ophelia to her mere virginity, telling her that she must remain a virgin until marriage or be a disgraced woman that is not to be married.
This relates to what women have to deal with--hundreds of years after Hamlet was written! As young women, we have to deal with being called "pops" or "thots" even if we are seen around too many guys, never mind kissing them, and God forbid, actually having sex with them. Like Polonius said, we must look after our sexuality if we ever want to find a life partner that will value us as women of character, and not our "body count." The reputations and negative rumors spread about us only make us less desirable to the young men around us, also relating back to Polonius's statement. Women must preserve their bodies for the man they will be with for the rest of their lives. They must fit into the role of a quiet woman--complacent, obedient, pure, shy.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/30976576@N07/7302480342/in/photolist-c8i7Zu-eJLnUr-eRqosz-dQhwup-jpXf7v-dBFDTr-eepgaA-aLc4Gz-e4txGA-83zxqq-cZCJSu-aKEijK-81JAH3-aLzwoH-8KLG35-9QxzJs-9XfZyZ-8xPMpM-jCDHRA-m6AhLv-81EsMc-9NEtYQ-8367w1-fcA4se-fcQo3C-81FtLe-e9Jewf-9NEwpU-aLc1Di-dAuDqv-9RTMmi-9PtxzB-bkdJ1z-gmYDTg-e4QTGi-81JCL1-f9q1VY-fDFwJL-9Kprw8-aBE9AJ-9XsJMM-bDMB9A-b2bQt6-fLCGPu-8UKcbp-dt5Kjs-9d5WGV-a6BM2e-hzkCJR-hLarzm-fDs7Y6

This also even relates to a book I read recently, and even discussed on an Independent Reading Day, Fear of Flying. Isadora, a woman in the 1960s, deals with the conflict of being in an unhappy marriage vs. her sexual desires with various men. Women becoming divorced, let alone being adulterous, is stigmatized in her time period and she must always conform to the ideals of her family and society.
Now, I am in no way advocating multiple sexual partners but we do need to be fair when it comes to labelling genders according to their behaviors, especially with something as overrated and private as sex and virginity.

I Just Want To Be Loved

This week in class we read Paradise Lost by John Milton, which is based off of the Adam & Eve story from Genesis. However, this is an epic and in Paradise Lost Milton gives Adam, Eve and Satan a thought process for the reasons why they do certain things. In Genesis, it is just understood that Satan is evil, but it never explains why. In Paradise Lost before the text begins, it is said that Satan has just been kicked out of Heaven and is now about to seek revenge on God. Satan is evil, granted, and I think this may have made him completely evil. He is kicked out Heaven and is now about to throw a tantrum and for attention. This happens all the time. A child and his parents have issues, so the child turns into a problem child. They do things for attention, similar to Don Jon the Bastard from Much Ado About Nothing. Don Jon frames an innocent girl and almost ruins her reputation to hurt his brother and get attention. He wants someone to treat him as something more than a bastard, a human being. Satan does the same. Satan goes after God's precious creation to hurt God because he knows that is what would hurt Him the most. He wants a reaction out of God to see God hurt and possibly feel the same hurt he does when he was thrown out of Heaven. Satan is thrown out of Heaven because he wants to be God's equal, which cannot happen. God is the ultimate supreme and Satan cannot take that. So he is dismissed and now is throwing a tantrum. He and Don Jon are acting like children who just want to be loved by their loved ones. Maybe Satan just wants to be loved and forgiven and Don Jon too.

Just a thought: What if Satan tries to be God's equal because he wants to be like the Father. Think about it.  It would support the idea of him acting like a child. But, then again, he might have just wanted to take God's place. Something to ponder.

Hamlet and The Great Gatsby

Most of us have read the book or seen the movie “The Great Gatsby” by F.Scott Fitzgerald. Hamlet and Jay Gatsby are very similar in their desire to reach their goals. Although these characters have different personalities, they show similarities in their flaws and actions that lead to their downfall. Both Hamlet and Jay Gatsby chose to take on false identities in order to carry out certain goals. Hamlet in order to revenge his father's death chooses to take on an antic-disposition. Hamlet chooses to do this in order to keep attention away from himself, so that he can carry out his plan to seek revenge on Claudius. Jay Gatsby wants himself to be known as a rich man who constantly throws luxurious parties. His reason for this false identity is to attract the attention of Daisy, in hopes that she will one day come to one of his parties. Another similarity is that both character have a deep love and attachment to other people in the book which lead them to take action. Hamlet loves his father and values him, therefore when the ghost of his father tells him to avenge his death Hamlet promises to do it. Gatsby’s love for Daisy lead him to work to achieve riches in the hopes of attracting her and getting her back. Lastly both characters flaws lead to their downfall. Hamlet's inability to make decisions on time and actually take revenge leads to his death and the death of others. Hamlet and Laertes are both stabbed battling each other. Laertes wants to kill Hamlet for killing his father, Polonius. Gertrude drinks some poisoned wine that was meant for Hamlet, so Gertrude dies too and after being poisoned by Laertes blade, Hamlet manages to kill Claudius. Jay Gatsby's unattainable dream to get Daisy leads to his death because he is killed by George, the husband of Myrtle Wilson, the woman Daisy accidentally ran over. George kills Gatsby because he believed Gatsby was to blame for Myrtle's death. So in both books the main characters were killed because of other characters want for revenge on them. As you can see these two stories are very similar and both these characters share similar flaws that in the end lead to their downfalls.

https://flic.kr/p/bPpuZB https://flic.kr/p/2aoYYv

Abusive much?

        This week in class we were continuing to analyze Much Ado About Nothing. We watched the wedding scene where one of the characters, Claudio, falsely accuses Hero of cheating and calls her a "rotten orange." When we watched the movie, Claudio makes a whole dramatic scene by throwing Hero back at her father aggressively and continuously tarnishing her name in front of everyone like a madman. Claudio never once bothers to ask Hero her side of the story. He is so quick to turn on the woman he claimed he loved. Hero's own father Leonato doesn't believe in his only daughter, and he'd rather Hero be left to die. Leonato punches Hero and drags her across the floor telling her to die. Both when I read and watched this scene, I just could not believe how much he trusts Claudio and the Prince over his own flesh and blood. Leonato, instead of being concerned with how Claudio just disgraced his daughter in public, is more concerned with their reputation being tarnished.

       I know comedies are supposed to end with everyone being happy except the villain, but I just cannot understand why Leonato would even want Hero back with Claudio. Why would you want your daughter with someone who was so willing to humiliate her publicly, flip chairs and throw her around? That sounds like an abusive relationship to me, I would not want my daughter to be with a man who would lose his temper like that. Claudio doesn't deserve Hero. Through this whole play she has done nothing wrong. Hero is like the perfect Elizabethan women.

\

To Be or Not to Be a Great Student

  Hamlet is a revenge tragedy, so our tragic hero must have a flaw. In Hamlet's case, his inaction proves to be his Achilles heel. Throughout the week in class, we discussed our frustration with Hamlet's botched chances at killing Claudius, his excuses, and his overall lack of chutzpah. However, we recognize that it is a human life we are asking Hamlet to take, a tainted corrupt life, but life nonetheless. His moral conflict as we often say, needs to be resolved in order for him to carry out his revenge. Hamlet is sometimes impulsive, for example when he killed Polonius believing it was Claudius. Yet other times he is chastising himself for his dormancy on his quest for revenge. I could not help but think about a student. At times we are refreshed and determined to ace all our classes. Two weeks later we wish we were doing better and hoping our grades come through. Consistency is really essential to success, in both Hamlet's case and a student's academics. I honestly struggle with consistency in my grades. Then I see a Fortinbras in our class and I am determined again, as Hamlet was. Can we really be upset with mediocre grades, when we did nothing to improve them? Hamlet cannot really complain when Claudius is not dead yet, because what has he done to make that happen? When we as students complain about a class or stress, but do nothing to fix it what kind of grades should we expect? Every day we make decisions that impact our future, so as senioritis rears its ugly head, remember that.

http://memecrunch.com/meme/2I2K/senioritis

Modern Day Hamlet

    I am a TV junkie. One of my favorite shows, is the most violent and dramatic show on television Sons of Anarchy. It is also loosely modeled after Hamlet. The connections between the show and play are really amazing, and Sons of Anarchy is the modern take, on this revenge tragedy. Jax Teller is the Vice President of the SAMCRO (Sons of Anarchy Motorcycle Club Redwood Original), and he is our Hamlet. His step-father Clay is the President, who took over after Jax's father died. Sound familiar? Clay is Claudius, and his wife and Jax's mom, Gemma is Gertrude. We even have our ghost, except its in the form of letters and manuscripts left by Jax's father about what he wants for the motorcycle club. Tara is Jax's high school sweetheart, or Ophelia and Opie is Jax's childhood friend modeled after Horatio. Jax does not know how his father died, but he does know that the motorcycle club is not going where his father would have liked. The club is involved in drugs, weapons trafficking, and prostitution. It's basically like the rotten corrupt activities going on in Denmark. Throughout the show, Jax struggles with fulfilling his father's dream of a motorcycle club that defends the people of their town, Charming. He has to deal with his overbearing step father Clay, (who killed his father) and his mother Gemma, who has a drinking problem. Jax also has to face is own demons, an ex wife and mother to his child who is a heroin addict, and the love of his life Tara who wants nothing to do with the motorcycle club. Sons of Anarchy has many of the qualities that Hamlet has - treachery, moral corruption, and revenge. The thing that I love about it, is that it is an extension for me of the characters in Hamlet. I picture Gertrude as being spiteful, strong, and relentless, and Gemma plays that out for me on screen. I want to believe that Ophelia is smart, brave, and cunning and Tara embodies that. I wish I could see deeper into Hamlet's mind, his interactions with other characters, and what kind of leader he would be, Jax is just as complex. One of the characters I feel we do not see deeply enough into is Claudius. Believe me, you will hate Clay because you see the twisted lengths he will go to for power. SOA is VERY VIOLENT but the character development is amazing, and if you want to see more of the dysfunctional characters in Hamlet SOA is the way. Also Charlie Hunnam (Hamlet) is beautiful, you're welcome. 

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3744/12224059235_5bbc3dcda0_o.jpg

A Modern Day Benedick

In my English class, 12N, we are currently reading and analyzing the Shakespeare play Much Ado About Nothing. In the play, one of the characters that was fascinating and also one of my favorites was Benedick. Benedick, with his buddy Claudio, just came home from winning a victorious war. Benedick is a bachelor who "believes" that he will never fall in love ever in his life. Claudio, his friend as well as his foil in the in the play, falls in love hard with Hero who at this time is considered to be the "perfect woman." While Claudio is in love, Benedick on the other hand believes he is perfectly fine being  bachelor  for the rest of his life. In a passage from the book Benedick has a conversation with Claudio, the prince, and others  in Act I.i lines 125-130 saying "I faith and thou wilt needs thrust they neck into yoke, wear the print of it." Basically, Benedick in this line is saying that he could never be tied down to only one woman and be married but would rather be a bachelor and sleep around.

I think many boys in this day in age are modern day Benedick's in a sense.  I say this because If any teenage male (not all)  are in a committed relationship about 85-95% of the time  ***Note from Ms. Whitley: These may not be real statistics, but we get the point.  :) they cheat while in the relationship that they are in by talking to other females on the side or saying they are single on social networks when in reality they really aren't. They don't actually want to work towards a good relationship and be faithful and honest. I mean you can't really expect much from the teenage male species at this age. They are just modern day Benedick's that will one day find their Beatrice that will change there view about things.

*This Blog was not intended to offend anyone just simply my thoughts.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern: Real Friends or 'nah'?

       So earlier in the week, we had to do to an assignment with a partner discussing "Feigning Friendship" in Hamlet. As we all know, Hamlet is acting "crazy" and it has the attention of Claudius and Gertrude. Long story short, Claudius brings his good ol' childhood buddies Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in to try and see what's the problem, a.k.a be his spy. Now, my question to you ladies is, do you think they are good friends or backstabbers to Hamlet? 

        For me, I think they aren't good friends and are just looking for brownie points from Claudius. Ms. Whitley pointed out a section in class where one of the two said that if hamlet does not tell them why he is acting crazy, they will leave. That being said goes to show they don't really care about Hamlet. If they really cared, they would of went about finding out why he's acting that way in a friendlier way and wouldn't press the subject, giving him time to open up to them. If Claudius would of never called them, they probably would of never came to check on Hamlet. They seem to have taken the opportunity from Claudius to have some sort of vacation and to have the title of being the "kings little helpers". (They seem more like royal booty kissers to me.) 

       These events stood out to me the most because Guildenstern and Rosencrantz aren't showing loyalty to Hamlet at all. If you really cared about your friend, you wouldn't scheme behind their back with their stepparent, which these despise. They represent the opposite of what friends should do, especially when that friend is dealing with the death of a loved one. 

          Also, I think they are there for us as the audience to further sympathize with Hamlet. The more people hurt him, the less annoyed we are with him. We stop being annoyed about his slowness in killing Claudius and instead sympathize with his misfortune. 

These are text messages from Guildenstern and Rosencrantz (they share a phone because iPhones are expensive) to hamlet and Claudius. See where their loyalty lies? Shame, shame SHAMEEE!!! 

(Btw the top pictures say "let's just all stab ____) 

Does Gertrude Have Blood(guilt) On Her Hands? Hamlet

 

(left to right) Afia Obeng and Amanda Scott in Macbeth





                                                       poisonashes.deviantart.com

While doing the responses for Hamlet, I couldn't help but notice some similarities between the plays Hamlet and Macbeth. In Act III.iv of Hamlet, Hamlet says to his mother "confess yourself to heaven" assuming that since Gertrude married Claudius that she must have some part in the murder of King Hamlet. But did she really know Claudius killed King Hamlet? I don't think she does, mainly because in this scene Gertrude is unable to see the ghost of her late husband, and this is where I connected Gertrude to Lady Macbeth. Lady Macbeth, as we know, is responsible for killing the King and later on she turns mad with the whole “blood on hands” scene; this happened because she was filled with guilt. Later on in this play, Banquo’s ghost comes to haunt Macbeth but Lady Macbeth is unable to see the ghost, and I think this is because she is not connected to his murder. Banquo’s murder is all Macbeth’s doing. So since Gertrude cannot see the ghost of her late husband, she has no part of his murder. This made me think, Gertrude did not actually commit a sin for she is simply unaware of what’s going on around her. Gertrude does not know that Claudius killed her husband and that is why she does not feel guilty and in a figurative sense, her hand is clean of blood. I do not think it is humanly possible for someone to be connected to a murder and not go a little insane, because even Lady Macbeth who we all thought was a "thug" went on a major guilt trip.
Do you think Gertrude still played a part in King Hamlet's death?

Reflection 12N What is good and What is bad in society

Reflection 

       So far in the play Much Ado About Nothing we have picked up how the characters, Beatrice and Benedick, are foils (character that act the total opposite from other characters such as the protagonist/main character(s))  of Hero and Claudio.  People would have noticed how Beatrice and Hero are foils by the definition of a good women in society from their time period.  "A good women does not speak, she is silent." Hero fits perfectly in the category of a good women because(I.i) she has only said ONE line during the whole conversation with the messenger.  After the class read the whole scene, Mrs.Whitley asked us who were the people in scene one, we named Leonato, the prince, Benedick, Claudio, and Beatrice. All of 12N forgot all about Hero being in the scene.  In the play later on, Claudio was one of the many people to notice her "in" the conversation, but Hero through her silence(I.i). Claudio has even said"Silence is the perfectest herald of joy." (I.i), proving my point of a "good women" in their time.  At first Claudio is COMPLETELY certain he had found his wife, but once Don John started putting stuff in Claudio's head making Hero seem promiscuous and unfaithful he says "Friendship is constant in all other things save in the office and affairs of love. Therefore all hearts in love use their own tongues. Let every eye negotiate for itself and trust no agent, for beauty is a witch. . .(II.i)" I thought about what he had said and it seems as though he would choose his friendship over someone he "loves". Claudio uses the "Bro code" which is "Bros before ___". Also, "beauty is a witch" I took that as "Beauty is the Beast".  Beatrice would represent Hero's foil quite well for mainly speaking without "permission". In Elizabethan/ Shakespearean time what society viewed as a "bad women" was someone who spoke without permission and they were considered monsters."By my troth, niece, thou wilt never get thee a husband if thou be so shrewd of thy tongue."- Leonato (II.i), her own uncle even tells her that she won't be suitable to get a husband because she is so talkative and her words are harsh.

        Now with Claudio and Benedick what makes them a foil will have to be their views/opinions on marriage.  Benedick doesn't want to get married because he doesn't trust women at all.Men are shamed by their women being promiscuous. Once a women cheats on her man, then he would "become" a cuckold due to her committing adultery/ being unfaithful.  It's funny how to reason's for two people to become a couple is related to tricking each of them. Don john tricks Claudio in to thinking Hero is sleeping around when she is not. The prince and Balthazar just to stick it to Benedick's pride by saying that he couldn't compare with Beatrice.  In the process of he FINALLY realizes he actually loves her.

Reflection 12S

On Wednesday March 5th, Ms. Whitley gave us a class project. it was based off of Hamlet's meeting with the ghost and telling Horatio that he is going to put on an "Antic Disposition" We had to listen to two songs, "Madness" by Muse (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mq9zhpBweDk) and "Time Keeper" by Grace Potter & the Nocturnal (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am6NS05pZH0) and compare it to Hamlet's character. She asked us some very excellent questions at the bottom of the lyrics sheet that gave us a chance to experience how Hamlet may be feeling. 
I personally feel that the comparison between Shakespeare's era and modern times through music helped me comprehend the text a lot better. If you feel the same way, leave a little reply.


So I ask the question now? As Ms. Whitley put it.

In "Madness", the lines "And I, I tried so hard to let you go,
But some kind of madness is swallowing me whole, yeah
(Ma-ma-ma-ma-ma-ma-ma...)" really related to Hamlet's position about King Claudius's and Gertrude's hasty marriage. To me it represents how he just could not get over that, and how he used it as a jab at them every time.
In "Time Keeper", the lines "Time Keeper, I thought I'd have it right by now,  Time Keeper, Everything's still spinning out,  I'm undone" really relates to Hamlet's indecisive nature towards killing King Claudius. He wishes he would have done it before, yet he makes up all kinds of excuses to actually do it.
In this nature Hamlet really reminds me of Mordecai from Regular Show. He kept trying to make Margaret his girlfriend but never had to courage to. he kept making up excuses as to why he never kissed her.
So now I ask you two questions: 1) Can bringing a shocking truth to light impact a person's mental state? 

2) If you're prisoner to your feelings, can it keep you from taking action?

P.S. G-Dragon (K-Pop Idol) has a song, CROOKED, that also reminds me of Hamlet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAHy8r5-kpc

Scandal and Shakespeare?

At the beginning and end of the week in English this week, we discussed Hamlet Act 1 scene 3 , more specifically Polonius' advice to his daughter Ophelia. In our discussion, it was revealed that Polonius is not truly the "loving" father that he initially seemed to be. Instead, he is a conniving, reputation obsessed older man who is using his children as a means to gain fame and respect. He does not show the genuine affection fathers are known for to either of his children, but instead uses them as pawns for achieving success. His lack of affection and obsession with improving his status is evident in Act 2 scene 1, when Ophelia tells him about Hamlet's erratic behavior during their last meeting. Instead of consoling his daughter, Polonius blames his daughter for Hamlet's bizarre behavior "What, have you given him any hard words of late? (pg 81 l.119). Before he checks to see if his daughter is alright, he decides to run excitedly to tell King Claudius of Hamlet's strange behavior: "Come, go we to the King. This must be known.." (pg. 81 l. 130-131) His daughter Ophelia, however, fails to recognize her father's reputation obsessed nature and chooses to follow his every command.

http://ionetheurbandaily.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/rowan-olivia-scandal.gif

The relationship between Polonius and Ophelia reminded me of Olivia Pope and her father Rowan Pope on Scandal. Both fathers, Polonius and Rowan attempt to keep their daughters out of a relationship with a man they do not approve of. However, in Rowan's case his daughter is in a relationship with the President of the United States. Both fathers are also very powerful: Polonius with his job as an advisor to King Claudius and Rowan as the now former head of B613 a covert government agency. Another parallel is "the lack of true love" or affection in both relationships. Rowan just like Polonius fails to show his daughter any genuine signs of affection and uses typical father-daughter bonding moments, like going to Sunday dinner as a place to warn her about her affair and the corruption of the government. Neither men ever tell their daughters that they love them and fail to show their daughters the love that they truly desire. For Ophelia, it causes her to go out of her way to try to please her father and win his love, while Olivia puts up a wall between herself and her father. One interesting parallel between Ophelia and Olivia are their names, though it may be a bit of a stretch; their names begin with the same letter and have a very similar flow! I wonder if the creator of Scandal, thought about Ophelia as she created Olivia Pope. What do you think about the connection between Scandal and Hamlet? Have you noticed any more connections between Hamlet and some modern television shows or movies?

Perception Verses Reality

As we currently read Hamlet by Shakespeare, the theme of perception came to mind. In Act one, Scene two, Hamlet and his mother are speaking to each other about his emotional state. She says, "If it be, why seems it so particular with thee?" (I.ii.25). Hamlet's response to her is, "'Seems,' madam? Nay, it is. I know not 'seems'" (I.ii.25). Hamlet's mother downplays his appearance of grief and pain, which caused Hamlet to go on a little rant about how seems isn't enough, but he truly feels like he's hurting. This is where my idea of perception came to mind. The Queen clearly does not understand Hamlet's emotions fully which is why she uses the word "seems".
An artist's work that I'm currently looking at is Kenyatta A C Hinkle. I don't know much about her background but I do know that she is very educated in African/African-American culture, which brings me to my main topic.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenyatta-ac-hinkle/kenyatta-ac-hinkle-on-the_1_b_3462131.html

Hinkle's artwork is based off of the perception of African women during the colonization of Africa by the French. These women were most often looked at as sexual objects and not as humans. They were used for hard labor and other means of cruelty. The photo above was originally a postcard of the woman without any ink on top of it. Hinkle took the original image and drew on top of it to symbolize the effects of colonization. She is saying that colonization is a disease that spreads like a virus. My connection to Hamlet is that these women were perceived as sexual objects because of their lack of clothing, but in reality they were without clothes because that is their culture. These women were not mean to be sexually appealing to these colonist, but they were. The colonist perception of African women was that they were exotic creatures, hence the ink coming out of the breast of the women. So I leave you with this question, how does perception effect you? 

Quiet or Unquiet?

This week in class we have been focusing on Much Ado About Nothing by William Shakespeare. In the book, the readers found out about two different types of Women during the Renaissance period. Mrs. Whitley gave the class characteristics of a quiet woman and a unquiet woman. A quiet woman,“her Patience is a Vertue that winnes the heart of loue, and her wisedome makes her will well worthy regarde: She feares God, and flyeth finne” A quiet woman is seen as patient, worthy, loving, a good wife, submission to her husband, and fears God. However, a unquiet woman is “the grief of nature, a word, but not of Grace, a creature but not of wisedome, and a feruant, but not of God.” An unquiet woman is compared to the lowly of the lowest, a creature. An unquiet woman is not of God and deserves not to marry. Her straightforwardness is a shame to womanhood.

Reading Much Ado About Nothing, the audience come across a quiet and an unquiet woman in Act I alone. It can be assumed that Hero is an quiet woman. She allows her beauty to speak for itself, she never interrupts, and allow men to speak, which contributes to the reason why Claudio acknowledges her beauty and desires to marry her. Beatrice can be considered an unquiet women. Someone who will speak up to a male and is willing to make jokes and state the obvious. Some males and quiet women might look down on her because she does not allow her beauty to speak - it is all her mouth.

Which women are you? I think I am an unquiet women because I love to state my opinion, and I'm very outspoken around everyone. However, I do not agree with the Renaissance definition of what women should be. I believe more unquiet women should come out the closet, and stand up to everyone and be fearless, outspoken, and powerful! To whom do you belong - quiet or unquiet?

Something's Fishy

This week in English class, we have been discussing one of Shakespeare's works Hamlet. As I am sitting in class learning about the death of Hamlet's father, something stood out to me that seemed a little weird. Claudius, the new king of Denmark and the brother of the former king, is going to marry his brother's widow Gertrude. Mind you that it has only been a month since Gertrude's former husband passed away, and she seems fine with the fact of marrying Claudius and showing no sign of mourning for her late husband. Now does this seem fishy to anyone else or is it just me? How could Gertrude not mourn for her own late husband and then decide to remarry?! It is not only wrong that Claudius is marrying Gertrude, but it is seen as a sin back in Shakespeare's time.This is considered incest, which is a pretty big deal back in that time and in our time period now.   **Note from Ms. Whitley.  It is only seen as a sin or as incest by Hamlet.  This would actually have been perfectly acceptable at this time.  In fact, in Deuteronomy 29:9, the bible directs a man to marry his brother's wife is she becomes a widow.  

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3158/2743153679_d1bd46a870.jpg

"Something Smells Fishy"

Hamlet, however, shows that he is mourning for the loss of his father and cannot believe how Claudius and his mother are reacting. Gertrude tells Hamlet to cut out his moody behavior and to ditch his black attire for clothing that shows to be more cheerful. She tells Hamlet that everyone dies and we have to get over it. Well I do not know about anyone else, but if a family member of mine had passed away, I would be in the same mourning stage as Hamlet. I do not know anyone who could not feel a bit of sadness for a death that has occurred, let alone the death of one's parents. 

TRUE LOVE

While reading "Federigo's Falcon,"some of our fellow classmates got upset because they did not agree with the fact that Federigo gave up everything he had for this one lady who did not even show any type of affection towards him. Some thought he was stupid. I don't think he was stupid, I just think he was blind. Our classmates said they would have never done what Federigo did for the lady, but have you ever been in love? When you are in love, you are blind and living in this fantasy in which only you and your lover exist. When you are deeply in love like Federigo was, the well being of your lover comes first. You would do anything for that person because you are madly in love. Love is a powerful feeling that can make you do stupid things at times. Federigo's character gives you a taste of how a person is when he or she is in love. I would have probably done the same if I was madly in love, I wouldn't have given up my falcon though. Would you have done the same? Do you understand why Federigo acted that way? Do you believe in true love?

Wait a minute...

While reading the Prologue to The Canterbury Tales, we learned and examined about a character's physiognomy which is defined as a person's facial features or expression, esp. when regarded as indicative of character or ethnic origin. While listening to other people present their projects and while I examined my own character, I thought "isn't this what we're taught NOT to do?" because I know everybody has gotten the "Don't judge a book by it's cover" cliche thrown at them more than once, but this is what Chaucer is doing! He is telling us about each pilgrim and telling what they are or what he thinks they are and the type of person they are based on their outward appearance! I'm not criticizing Chaucer because he's using this sort of "judging" as a literary device to depict what's wrong with society in some cases, but it's funny that he gets credited for something most of us were taught not to do! :)

We, the Wife of Bath

So, I was trying to figure out how I could connect the wife of bath's story to modern day life. I couldn't think of anything but then I realized, we are no different than she is (well there are some obvious differences but you know what I mean). Sometimes, we want to be in control. It may not be all the time but it never hurts, right? Sometimes, we want to be the one wearing the pants(a lot of women wear pants). Now, looking at this through a man's point of view, this would be completely out of the question. Blasphemous! However, if you think about it, a lot of men are submissive to women nowadays. Mainly because they just want you to "shutup", or their just into that.  It never hurts to be independent or to go against the status quo.  Let others think what they want about how you live your life. Alison, that's the Wife of Bath's name, certainly did and she couldn't be any happier.

The Knight vs. Macbeth

In English 12N, our class just wrapped up the prologue of The Canterbury Tales. For a class assignment, Ms. Whitley put us into groups, assigned us two characters and told us to make an analysis of their personality, their physical appearance and what Geoffrey Chaucer was trying to explain through the use of satire. One of the characters that I had to explain was the Knight.

The Knight, along with the Parson, is a character that Chaucer used to be an example of what someone should be like, in terms of personality and physicality. We all know how much most of the characters in The Canterbury Tales need some kind of spiritual guidance because many of them are the complete antithesis of what they should be. The Knight is a chivalrous man who has traveled the world, to and fro, to fight battles in war. He is highly respected for his bravery and his modest personality. The Knight can be considered modest because of his clothing. He wore a plain tunic with stains on them because he had just come back from a battle. I don't know about you, but if I were a highly respected knight, I'd flaunt in the best clothing with the finest jewelry on the highest horse that was offered to me.

Since my class is also in the midst of the term paper process, the Knight reminded me of Macbeth, a character in my own term paper. I know you're probably wondering how the brave and modest Knight can compare to someone so selfish and murderous like Macbeth, but before Macbeth made a complete 180 degree turn for the worst, he was actually a good man. Before Macbeth murdered King Duncan, Duncan had nothing but praises for him. In the beginning of Macbeth, the captain tells Duncan that Macbeth killed the evil Macdonwald and saved all the lives of the men who were on his side. Macbeth could have easily been the Knight in Chaucer’s story because of all the battles they've fought and the honor that has been put upon them from others.

The Wife of Bath: Woman Power

link to picture

Last week in English class, we discussed The Wife of Bath's tale. We learned that women back then belonged to the men in their lives and that they had to be obedient. The Wife of Bath was anything but a normal woman. She is strongly for the equal political, economic, and social rights for women as you can see in the text. 
You see women standing for gender equality to this day! The well known artist, Beyonce, recently released an self-titled album that would be deemed too "sexy" for most listeners. She's a woman of power, money, and success all within a male dominated industry. Majority of her songs challenges the social norm! (ex: "Who Runs The World" and to be honest, the whole self titled album). She openly talks about her sex life with her husband through her music and I honestly see nothing wrong with that. If men could rap about having sexual intercourse with multiple women in one night, why can't she sing about her love life? Beyonce recently told CNN: 

"But I guess I am a modern-day feminist. I do believe in equality. Why do you have to choose what type of woman you are? Why do you have to label yourself anything? I'm just a woman and I love being a woman." (CNN) 

This reminded me of the Wife of Bath and her arguments as to why she should be able to marry multiple times and to be able have sex with her husband(s). It's not like she's having sex out of wedlock so it should not be frowned upon. At least she's going about it the "right way" (aka through marriage).

Wife of Bath, you better do what you do and don't let anyone tell you otherwise! 

 

wob