Great Pip

In the Introduction to my Barnes & Noble Classics version of Great Expectations, writer Radhika Jones talks about the perhaps autobiographical elements present in the novel. These connections in the introduction are useful to a reader who is unfamiliar with Charles Dickens and his writing, like me. I am contemplating this is a topic for my paper. After all, Pip is easily the most likable character in the story. Once we meet Pip, we immediately become friends with and sympathetic for him. His sister’s treatment of both him and Joe draws pity for the two characters. Also, Pip’s childish naiveté is charming he has a way of inadvertently doing and saying things that make him exponentially cuter. As I finish my reading, I hope I am able to continue to see this trait in Pip.

Part III of Hamlet

What is odd about the Ghost’s appearance to Hamlet in the Queen’s bedroom?

First, the purpose of the ghost is peculiar. Previously, he always comes with a purpose of either looking for or informing Hamlet. However, now he seems to be reminding Hamlet of his duty. This is happening while Hamlet chastises his mother for her actions. If anything, the Ghost should be happy with what his son is doing, since he is “revenging” the deeds of his mother by making her feel guilty. Also, Hamlet does not need a reminder about killing his stepfather. He is perhaps as motivated, if not more, to avenge his father’s murderer as his father is. Next, the visibility of the Ghost is strange. Earlier in the play, Bernardo and Francisco easily see him, for example. However, the Queen, the very wife of the dead Hamlet, is unable to see him.

How Sophocles Made "Oedipus" Interesting

Since most of his contemporaries had heard the story, Sophocles had to craft the story in such a way to facilitate its entertainment value. However, since his audience only knew an abridged version from the “Odyssey,” he was able to embellish it. The story of Oedipus is, of course, a very unique, entertaining one; therefore, Sophocles’ job became telling it in a way to most effectively utilize its interesting plot. He does this by making the play very emotional and taking advantage of his viewers’ knowledge of the story.

Oedipus’s refusal to accept his guilt serves to reinforce the dramatic irony in the story. Initially, Oedipus is making threats upon the killer to the priest. His repeated calls for the death of the murdered of Laios has a comical effect, for a viewer who already knows the ending. Then, the arrival of Teiresias starts the process of getting the truth. And Oedipus adamantly refuses to listen to Teiresias. He says, “Say what you will. Whatever you say is worthless.” Then, his stubborn rejection turns into disrespect. He starts brazenly insulting Teiresias by mocking his age and blindness. The dramatic irony here is entertaining because the viewer knows that Oedipus is only setting himself up for a greater shock. And if one did not know better, one might start questioning the outcome of the story based on Oedipus’s conviction about his innocence.

Sophocles is able to create a lot of suspense before the revelation about Laios’s true manner of death. At first, Teiresias and Oedipus are just arguing in the abstract. Then, the messenger starts the process of implanting suspicion about the truth in Oedipus’s mind. However, the shepherd that is summoned to the scene gives the conclusive testimony about the murder of Laios. There is a substantial time delay before he makes his presence; the truth is revealed during the middle of the fourth scene of the play. To the viewer, all of this drama would have been unfolding for many minuted. During this time, Oedipus is in a state of confusion and quite scared because of the implications that are hinged on this information.

Then, the audience begins to pity Oedipus, despite his abominable deed. First, the death of Iocaste cements the reality of the situation. Her manner of death, and how Oedipus reacts upon seeing his dead mother, evokes sympathy for the plight of the family and the family’s abrupt fall from grace. Next, Oedipus’s reaction is also sad. He first laments his birth: “ If only I had died,/This weight of monstrous doom/ Could not have dragged me and my darlings down.” The juxtaposition of this statement coupled with the knowledge of his “true” birth is depressing because it shows how truly "unlucky" Oedipus is. Next, Oedipus’s justification for making himself blind is an emotional one. The topic of the kids is broached and Oedipus remarks that cannot bear to see his own children anymore, which is possibly the worst punishment for a parent, considering what he did.

Sophocles is able to make the otherwise generic story of Oedipus very gripping through his thoughtful additions in terms of plot and dialogue. He also uses the structure of plays to highlight some of the things he does with the plot.

White Lies

I don’t care if my mom wants to wash my mouth with soap. I like it better this way, not having to tell who I really am. Taylor and Susie fascinate me. Their lives are so much more interesting. Plus, I don’t like any of my colored classmates any way.

…

I’m glad Natasha is in our class. I don’t like being with all of THEM with only Taylor. Taylor is too shy. Natasha she seems nice enough. We always eat lunch together, the three of us, in the corner of the schoolyard. We usually just talk amongst ourselves. Come to think of it, Natasha never talks about herself. She is always asking us questions about our lives or families. And she’s determined in her questioning too. After school, whenever we go to someone’s house, it’s always either mine of Taylor’s. I wonder why Natasha never invites us?

I have decided to find out more about Natasha. After all, the three of us need to stay together. However, I am growing suspicious of her. Whenever I ask her a question about her life, she seems to always pause before answering. And a lot of what she talks about seems fake. I’ve never been to her house. Actually, I haven’t ever even seen her parents. But I’m probably just being unreasonable.

It is Friday today. I tell my mom that I will be coming home late today, since I want to go home with Natasha. After school, I tell Natasha that I want to go home with her:

Natasha: “You can’t come with me; I really can’t have anyone over today.”
Me: “Why not? It’s the last day of school. You can’t have anywhere else to be.”
Natasha: “ Uhh…actually I’m not going home today. I have to visit my father at work.”
Me: “I can’t come with too? I won’t be any trouble. And I already told my mom that I wasn’t coming home.”
Natasha: “No, he’ll get really mad. I’ve gotta go now.”

Natasha left that day and was never seen again…

WFB and HOD and "Three Ways of Going Wrong"

The Kerr article brought up an insightful connection between the novels that we have read this semester. As Kerr talked about the evolution of the Kurtz and the magistrate, one thought struck me. Heart of Darkness and Waiting for the Barbarians teach the truth that the more time you spend with a group of people, the more you assimilate. This assimilation is shown by sympathy, compassion, and understanding of the native peoples.

In Waiting for the Barbarians, Colonel Joll, immediately is hostile to the barbarians. He arbitrarily view the barbarians as a threat. When he interrogates them, he is certain that he is being lied to; he continues with his pointless investigations. Next, the army officers that visit the Magistrate during the first chapter also hold this view. When the Magistrate offers his honest views of the barbarians, the main officer scoffs and immediately looks down upon the Magistrate. However, the Magistrate is not that way anymore, assuming that he was at one point.
The article quotes the reason for this evolution from the book: “sunk, after years in this backwater, in slothful native ways.” We know that he has spent a substantial amount of time on the frontier, and his time in the frontier has also exposed him to a lot of things. For example, he takes an interest in the archeological artifacts there, and he now speaks the frontier’s patois. The hallmark of this metamorphosis is his taking a barbarian concubine. He is genuinely curious to find out more about this person.

In Heart of Darkness, this theme rings true. Although Marlow is not at the same level of hate of the barbarians as Joll, he is still biased against the Africans. Marlow retains his prejudices about Africans and generally does not seem too concerned about the going-ons over there. At best, he is a passive, sometimes critical observer. At worse, his silence to the other Europeans is symbolic of his acquiescence to the system. However, he adopts a totally different stance once he spends time with Kurtz. As Kerr says, “He develops a curiosity about Kurtz and even finds himself drawn into the role of Kurtz's partisan and fellow-conspirator, as if he really were on Kurtz's side, as his enemies in the company believe.” Kurtz is the Magistrate’s equivalent in Heart of Darkness. He has transformed from a simple European imperialist into an enemy of the company. By the end of Kurtz’s time, everyone agrees that he has gone too far. By the end, he has become the “native” that he is supposed to be only working with.

WFB- Initial Impressionss

The first, probably most, noteworthy stylistic element in the novel is the use of ellipses. I think this stylistic element only adds to the entertainment of the book. The plot moves rapidly since within every chapter there are multiple changes of setting, characters etc. The length of these shifts is varied. At certain times, these shifts in time are longer, whereas other times they are only one page long. Waiting for the Barbarians has easily been the simplest book––in terms of readability––all semester. Although the novel has the occasional three-syllable word, the text is largely understandable without any assistance. The first person narrator seems to be pretty reliable; he is able to describe in detail what he perceives is happening and how it affects him.

The most interesting aspect of the novel so far––for me–– is the Magistrate’s opinion of the barbarians and how that frames the context for the other elements of the story. His view of the differences between the people from the Empire and the barbarians certainly differs from the norm. First, he tells us of his distaste when the barbarians try to deal with the people from the empire: “…the settlers litany of prejudice: that barbarians are lazy, immoral, filthy, stupid.” Furthermore, the Magistrate has a memorable discussion with the young, arrogant graduate from the War College. Here the Magistrate defends the barbarians, much to the disgust of the army conscript. However, his respect for the barbarians translates in an odd manner with the barbarians’ women. The almost blind woman that is his concubine is the most striking example. Also, he has a mistress (or whatever you want to call her) in the motel. His behaviors with respect to these relationships do not seem to be that respectful. Although he respects the woman that lives with him, he is not faithful to her.

Short Summary of Literary Criticism

"Heart of Darkness and Racism"
By Hunt Hawkins

This article responds to a series of statements and comments made by Chinua Achebe (a modern scholar).

-Achebe has repeatedly called Conrad a racist
-thinks he's racist because of the focus on racism and the portrayal of the Africans, while simultaneously not including them in the story

However, the author disagrees.

-Conrad doesn't talk about Africans because of his ignorance about their culture––Congo
-He's staunchly anti-imprerialist––Belgians
-His discussion was concomitant with the birth of evolution as a theory
-He shows the hypocrisy of the "civilizing mission"and how it's a "sham"
-Shows that evolution leads to evolutionary regression for Europeans––Kurtz
-Conrad didn't recognize the link between imperialism and racism
-Blames Kurtz for making the Africans "evil"
-Marlow doesn't exploit the Africans
-Racism inherent at this time
-At least Conrad isn't "extreme[ly] racist"