This Blessed House

The short story "This Blessed House" confused me a little bit. I had trouble figuring out the character of Sanjeev. Obviously he and his wife are both very intelligent because he went to MIT and she went to Stanford. It seems like he is already getting sick of her. Maybe that means he should have waited more than a few months to get married... anyway, the point is why did he marry her if he isn't sure if he even loves her? Maybe he was pulled into his mom's view, that he needs a wife for functional purposes, one that cooks and sews like the suitors from India. Maybe he figured that since he already had a grreat career and money in the bank, it made sense to have a wife as well. I can't tell, though, if he adores her (because it seems like that in some parts) or he regrets marying her (which seems to be the case more often than not). We'll see what we discuss in class I guess. . .

O

After watching the movie "O" I was thinking about how easily Shakespeare translates into different times and places. He's always thought to be such a universal playwright, and in most ways I agree that he is. I mean, he would have to be because after all, he took most of his ideas from ancient myths and stories and adapted them, so why can't we adapt those stories further to fit our life. Its just how history works. But some things just do work better in the time they were written. 

In the "olden days" honor was one of the most important things in a person's life. Thats why there were so many duels! Because it was just accepted that if someone offended your honor, you had to fight to get it back. Death was considered better in many cases that being dishonored. That is why I didn't think twice when I read "Othello" and found out that Othello had to kill Cassio and Desdemona for 'dishonoring' him. I still don't think its right, but it was easy to see how in the time of Shakespeare is was not surprising. 

In "O" im not sure if I feel the same way about how well this part translates. The overall theme of jealousy that Iago/Hugo feels is very easily to translate. But the fact that O feels he has to kill Mike and Dese is almost too far fetched for what we believe as an american society now. I know there is violence and crime in america, but this story line is less practical translated into the twenty first century than it was in the time of Shakespeare. 

Then I thought, "who would just jump to the conclusion that they need to kill the people that betrayed them?" I've known a lot of people that have been cheated on and they've never thought to commit murder over it. This is why I also think the character of O has inherent temper problems or some sort of complex to merit the drastic measures that he takes. He is for some reason more susceptible to the prodding of Hugo than "normal" people would be, because not just anyone in the world could be manipulated in the same way. 

This could also be true in part for Othello's character, but it is much harder for us to tell because we did not live in the place and the time. We can't be sure how much his surroundings influenced his actions and how much of it stemmed from insecurities. We can only make assumptions! 

Representations of Othello on Screen

I see this time and time again, but the power of artistic license never fails to amaze me. Especially in Shakespeare, I notice how many different ways a play can be performed basing on the original (or what we think is the most original) text Shakespeare wrote. It makes me admire directors as well as actors for making sense out of old English words that are hard for me to focus into when in writing. In the clip of Othello we watched together in class, my favorite representation was that of Othello. When I read the play I didn't register the emotion and the anguish that accompanied Othello's decision to murder Desdemona. I think that the actor interpreted the emotion that Shakespeare most likely meant to put into Othello during the act so well. The sadness he showed was perfectly mixed with the anger that he felt toward her because he believed himself betrayed. If I had to rethink that particular scene and try to imagine what Shakespeare most likely would have envisioned, that would be it. 

I would also like to clarify a point that I made in class. I mentioned that I thought the way Iago was represented was interesting because of how the directors portrayed his perception of the damage he caused. When I first looked at it, I thought he looked a little sorry for what he had done because of the way he was looking at Othello, and the way he was denying to answer his questions. At first look, I took his quietness to mean that he was afraid in a way to answer to Othello about what he had done. Because I didn't see glee in his eyes, I automatically went to the opposite which would be shame. When I re-watched the scene, I saw more indignation than repentance. This makes more sense because I think that the director would have had to make a very big use of their artistic license to show Iago as sorry for what he had done. I don't think the text gives enough evidence to legitimately make that call in a film representation. 

OTHELLO

Ahhh Shakespeare's tragedies . . . they always have such thoroughly horrible endings. Yes, the bad guy dies but so do all of the good guys! Here is a picture of the scene where Othello murders the most innocent and pure woman ever . . . irrational men. 

I want to talk about why Othello falls for Iago's scheme, when he and Desdemona had such a love struck relationship. I think this play brings to light a certain  inherent   quality that humans have to trust the bad or the negative.  What I mean is that Othello easily falls into the trap set by Iago by believing that Desdemona is unfaithful to him. Its like the old saying i've heard that goes something like this: If someone tells you they are not in love with you, why is it so easy to believe? Shouldn't it be as easy to believe if someone tells you they really do love you? But for some reason it isn't! And I think Shakespeare is creating this similar situation. I know some people are more positive than others, and some always see the good in people before the bad. But for some reason it is so easy to believe that people can do bad things and that bad things can happen to us. When good things are happening, we tend to think, " Wow check out my luck! I hope it doesn't end soon, knock on wood!" I think this is why Othello falls for Iago's trap. . . I think he has a tendency toward the negative. Maybe he was surprised that he "won" (I.III.95) Desdemona (perhaps based on an insecurity about the color of his skin in company of fair skinned nobles) that he is prone to thinking that something could go wrong between them no matter how much he loves her. . . And no matter how much she says she loves him! 

 

Girl, Interrupted

In Girl, Interrupted, one of the things I most noticed was female discrimination. I saw it in many places which made me think of "The Yellow Wallpaper" because there are so many of the same themes. The first parallel I saw was when the doctor told Susanna that she needed rest to cure her. This is the infamous "rest cure" still being used in the sixties that we saw in "The Yellow Wallpaper." The interesting thing is that in both the movie and the story, the rest cure is imposed by a man and does not help the patient. In fact, it makes both women go even more insane than they were thought to be before they were admitted into solitude. Another place I saw sexual discrimination is when Susanna's mom is emotional about her daughter's 'borderline personality' and cries in front of the doctor. I saw his discrimination toward her when he looked straight at her and said that this disease tends to run in the family. The fact that he assumed that it would be the mother who passed the tendency on to the daughter rather than the father shows discrimination because this disease was known as a woman's disease. 

Power in "The Yellow Wallpaper"

I think the theme of power is very present in Gilman's "The Yellow Wallpaper" in a variety of ways. The ugly yellow wallpaper is something that has power over the "nervous" woman. She thinks about it all the time, she looks at it constantly, and touches it. It bothers her to the point that she can't do anything else but be obsessed with it. John also has power over her because he considers her inferior. She does what he thinks is best for her, and talks to her sweetly but condescendingly. No man will listen to her opinion. That is why i associated the yellow wallpaper with men. They both have power over her and she resents that power. Men have women trapped behind them, and she saw the horrible yellow wallpaper as having a woman trapped behind it as well. I think her progressive insanity gives her the courage to make her attempt to break away from the trapping pattern of male dominance. When she rips off the paper, she is happy and she is strong. When she is freeing the trapped woman, who is herself, she reverses the traditional roles between her and John. She calls him, "young man," a term similar to the one he uses for her: "little girl." He is the helpless one, who is locked out of the room, and he is the one who faints at the end as if he were in a nervous state. 

Women in the Future

To me, one of the most interesting things that Virginia Woolf ensures her reader knows, in "A Room of One's Own," is that for her to provide an absolute truth about women and fiction is an impossibility.  I think this applies to so many other topics as well, and it's smart of her to state that she "can only show how one came to hold whatever opinion one does hold" (4).  What comes to my mind is the way philosophers, at least the ones that I have read in classes, insist that their philosophy is the correct one, and try to make it truth to their readers.  The reason she is so wise is because she realizes that with the time passing, so many things change, including truths: "Even if one could state the value of any one gift at the moment, those values will change; in a century's time very possible they will have changed completely" (40). 

This leads to the other thing that struck me about Woolf;  her ability to tell the future for women.  She foresaw that in 100 years, women would be occupying a more powerful role in society, the role that is in her time, reserved for men.  By her estimation, the times have moved even faster than she anticipated.  We still have 19 years to fulfill her prediction that "the nursemaid will heave coal" and "the shopwoman will drive an engine" (40).  If Woolf's prediction came true this fast, it makes me wonder what our society will be like for the relationship between the two sexes in another 100 years. Women are already "soldiers and sailors and engine-drivers and dock labourers" (40), so what is next?