So Far, So Good

So far, I am really enjoying One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. The story is creepily fascinating and makes me want to read more. What makes the novel so interesting for me is not, however, the storyline or plot. The page-turning element of the novel, for me, is the characters. Kesey has created the most intriguing and baffling characters. McMurphy serves as a wonderful contrast to all other characters of the story who remain mysteriously unexplained. Perhaps some of my questions will be answered as the plot develops but as of now, I am going crazy with curiosity! I find myself wondering: does the head nurse ever feel bad for her actions? How did she get so mean and ruthless? Is the Chief a reliable narrator? What exactly is wrong with him? The questions the novel has created for me have made reading thus far absolutely exciting and enjoyable. I’m thinking my paper may deal with the importance of and techniques of character development in the novel.

p.s. Sorry this is late Mr. Coon!

Claudius- A Villain from the Beginning

Question # 2:
How early in the play, and from what passages, do you perceive that Claudius is a villain?

Claudius is set up as a villain from the very beginning of the play. As readers, we automatically do not like Claudius because of his actions (marrying his brothers widow uncomfortably soon after his death). Claudius's words only add to our dislike. The very first time we hear him speak, he speaks the deceiving words of a villainous character. His speech in regards to the King's death seems formulated and not genuine. He comes across as speaking and acting the way he feels the public expects and wants him to speak and act. He shows no sign of true grief with his actions and thus his words are interpreted as fake and formulated. Our distrust of Claudius continues to grow throughout the play with his sneaky actions and deceiving demeanor. Perhaps his ability to make himself appear genuine while acting completely the opposite is what makes Claudius such a threatening villain.

Oedipus

Waltzing?

Earlier this week I sat at a picnic table in the quad with a few friends flipping through the pages of my English text book, searching for a suitable poem for this assignment. I came across “My Papa’s Waltz” and was instantly shocked and saddened by the words I read. I then proceeded to read it out loud to everyone at the table and we all agreed that the speaker of the poem was a young boy with an abusive alcoholic father, who was desperate for his father’s love. We remained completely sure that we had found the overarching message of the poem, that is, until Brian Baker entered the discussion. He read the poem and had an entirely different response. He reassured us all that the father and son were simply playing around and dancing in the kitchen together. Perhaps unfairly, the six girls at the table (including myself) shrieked and began to call Brian’s interpretation insensitive and blatantly incorrect. However, the more I thought about it and the more I read the poem, I began to realize that Brian’s interpretation can be supported with just as much evidence as my own initial interpretation. It was this first controversial encounter with the poem that helped me discover one of its central characteristics.
Roethke’s “My Papa’s Waltz” may actually give readers more insight into who they are as people then it gives about who the characters of the poem are. Roethke sets up the poem, perhaps intentionally, so that a reader must make a choice. Depending on who is reading, the tone of the poem may be interpreted as desperate, critical and unfortunate; on the other hand, another might read the poem and describe the tone as playful, comic, and even joyful. Essentially the reader must decide if the “waltzing” described in the poem is literally dancing or simply a self-comforting euphemism the reflective son has created for his father’s drunken manhandling of him as a boy.
Some phrases in the poem create a disturbing tone and contribute to the interpretation of “waltzing” as a euphemism. For example, when the boy describes himself as hanging on “like death” and “clinging to” his father’s shirt, there is a tone of desperateness in the word choice. When the father’s palm is described as “caked hard by dirt,” the father becomes associated with dirtiness which has obviously negative connotations. The father’s outright neglect for his son’s well-being by (unknowingly?) inflicting scrapes on his son’s ear also contributes to the conception of their “waltzing” as dysfunctional and violent.
However, Roethke includes just as many if not more phrases which create a playful and humorous tone, suggesting quite the opposite interpretation. His choice of the words “romp” and “waltz” is very revealing. He easily could have chosen stronger more violently-associated words, but chose these lighthearted and playful words instead. He also utilizes slant rhyme and a very rhythmic, even musical meter which both add to the playful and good-humored feel. There is a sense of comedy that goes hand-in-hand with the element of playfulness. For example, the image of a drunk father waltzing around the kitchen and knocking pans off the shelves of the kitchen while Mother watches on completely annoyed is an extremely humorous one. Still, the other side of the argument would note the helplessness of the mother and the destruction caused by alcoholism.
Regardless of which choice a reader makes, the tone of the poem is undoubtedly nostalgic and has an undeniable element of a complex kind of love. The retrospective son is able to look back on his childhood and appreciate the joy and playfulness imbedded within a somewhat dysfunctional memory. Although he describes his father as drunk, dirty, and even neglectful, the son cannot help but express his love for his father. The author presents a scene and leaves it up to the readers to determine, based one each reader’s set of preconceptions and assumptions, what tone each will take from the poem. What do you think? (667)

My Initial Reactions to Waiting for the Barbarians

So far, I have really enjoyed

Congo, Casement, and the Congo Atrocities - Alan Simmons

- Simmons discusses 2 men who wrote about the Congo: Conrad and Casement
- The two men knew and interacted with each other
- They were both "profoundly affected by their Congo experiences" and "found an outlet in their writing"
- They both shared a detestation for the atrocities they saw and supported reform
- However, their accounts of the mutilation differ significantly
- Casement began a crusade to find accurate eye-witness accounts to add to the reform movement. Therefore, his accounts offer graphic descriptions of specific atrocities to be presented to Parliament as an appeal for reform support.
- While Conrad wrote a fictional account intended for the public. therefore, Conrad uses much more hinting and vague suggestions (cannibalism example) rather than explicit facts. It is a "mixture of denial and evasion" perhaps, as Simmons suggests out of a threat to the European sense of self as "civilized."
- Simmmons then discusses the dilemma of expressing atrocities in general
- Conrad refers to the "unspeakable truth," but how exactly does one express things that are "unspeakable?"
- Cold hard facts, according to Simmons, are "doomed to be disbelieved because society has no context for it"
- "Heart of darkness" thus provides this context* and makes the discussion of uncomfortable facts more possible.
- Conrad expresses the unspeakable truth without over-exaggerating which would take away its credibility
- The facts are essentially unnecessary for Conrad's novella because "Officially, of course, it was denied. But man to man, everyone knew." He did not need to qualify the feasibility of his story. No one doubted it.

Poor Dilsey : (

Dilsey is the thread of the Compson household. She is with the family for as long as we can see and is, perhaps, the only character able to function effectively in time. She essentially raises all of the Compson children as well as her own, while taking care of the baby of the family, Mrs. Compson. Once Caddy, Father, and Quentin are gone, Dilsey seems to be the only adult in the household. Benjy needs 24-hour attention to function; Mother depends on Dilsey and Jason for all of her needs; Quentin cannot grasp the concepts of responsibility and gratitude (understandably);and, Jason cannot grow out of his own immaturity and stubbornness.

With a house full of dependent "Children," Dilsey is forced to take on all of the household responsibilities. In section one, we get hints that Dilsey has a lot of help with this burden. Her husband and sons work hard to take care of some chores. However, in section four, it is clear that Dilsey is practically on her own. Luster does not have the same sense of willingness to help that we saw in Versh and T.P. Thus, Luster becomes just another child Dilsey has to babysit around the clock.

With all that Dilsey does for the Compsons, one would expect them to express immense gratitude towards her. However, not once do we hear someone thank or appreciate her hard work. Mother complains that she is taking too long. Jason complains that she is not perfectly obedient and complacent to his authority and Quentin flat out ignores her efforts to protect her from Jason. Why does no one express appreciation for arguably the most important member of the Compson family? Why doesn't, at the very least, Luster appreciate her? Is there a complete inability to express gratitude or do the Compsons show grattitude for other characters besides Dilsey?