The Namesake - An Old Family Friend

        After distancing himself from his parents, Gogol is really affected when he finds out about his father's unexpected death. He immediately sets out for the hospital to identify his body and to clear out his apartment. Due to his father's death, "he knows now the guilt that his parents carried inside, at being able to do nothing when their parents had died in India, of arriving weeks, sometimes months later, when there was nothing left to do." (Lahiri 179). Gogol is filled with guilt because now that his father is dead, he can't do anything to make up for the lost time. All that he has left are memories.  He is so conflicted with his emotions that even Maxine's presence becomes an annoyance and he ends up pushing her away. When Maxine pays her respects to his family for their loss, Gogol is "aware that his father's death does not affect Maxine in the least."(182) Even though Maxine is just trying to support him during this troubled time, he is bothered because she is incapable of understanding the pain he is going through.
        Fortunately for Gogol, Moushumi, an old family friend comes back into his life. At first, Gogol is not too excited to see her since his mother was the one to encourage him to do so. He doesn't remember much about her except that she always carried a book with her and that they never really talked. During their first encounter, Gogol is intrigued that, "This is the first time he's been out with a woman who'd once known him by that other name."(193) Gogol soon becomes interested in her because he likes the fact that she is not a complete stranger. Since they are both American born with Bengali parents, it is no surprise that they click instantaneously. They understand each other because as kids they were both forced to practice their Indian traditions. Although they each promised themselves that they would never marry a Bengali, it is clear that they are meant for each  other.

The Namesake - Home

        After reading six chapters of The Namesake, I've noticed that both Gogol and his parents have trouble identifying a place where they truly belong. Ashima and Ashoke do not view their house in Pemberton Road as home, and after living in America for so long, India is no longer their home either. Gogol does not regard his parents house as home, and sadly he feels more comfortable wherever he is far away from them.
        At one point, Gogol mentions that he, "makes the mistake of referring to New Haven as home."(Lahiri 108), the city where he goes to college. He understands that saying this upsets his parents, yet he feels the right to call it home because it is perhaps the only place where he has ever felt comfortable.  Ashima is clearly insulted and she tells him that, "after twenty years in America, she still cannot bring herself to refer to Pemberton Road as home."(108) It is understandable that Ashima feels a sense of betrayal since her son is subtly admitting that New Haven, and not where he was raised by his parents, is the place where he belongs. It is also upsetting that she admits that after spending twenty years in America, it is not a place she identifies as home. Yet again, whenever they visit India, "Gogol [is] aware of an obligation being fulfilled; that it [is] above all else, a sense of duty that [draws] his parents back."(141-142). If they really feel a sense of obligation to go back to India, then it simply can't be the place they call home either.
        If Gogol's parents are so conflicted about where their home lies, then it is no surprise that Gogol feels the same way. At one point, Gogol is forced to attend a discussion about Indian novels written in English, and he learns about the term ""American-born confused deshi." In other words, him." (118). This term is used to describe Indians who don't know where they are form or where they belong, and Gogol accepts that he is one of them. Eventually, Gogol realizes that he wishes to be deeply connected to a place. This happens when he joins his girlfriend at her parents summer home, "He realizes that this is a place that will always be here for her." (156). That is exactly the type of place that Gogol needs for himself, a place that he can always go back to no matter what.

The Namesake - A New Home

           In the first two chapters of The Namesake, I have read about the story of an Indian couple who leaves behind their home in Calcutta, and emigrate to the United States. While Ashoke goes to college to get his degree, Ashima stays in their apartment feeling homesick and depressed. She talks about the hardships she endures in a new country, including raising her firstborn child far away from India.

         Shortly after beginning The Namesake, I felt sympathy towards Ashima because she feels miserable being away from her family. In this new country, "nothing feels normal to Ashima. For the past eighteen months, ever since she's arrived in Cambridge, nothing has felt normal at all."(Lahiri 5). Even though its been one and a half years since her arrival, Ashima simply cannot grow accustomed to the new place which is now her home. Even when her baby is born, and Ashima should feel overwhelmed by joy, she feels disconsolate because, "the baby's birth, like most everything in America, feels somehow haphazard, only half true."(25) I find it truly upsetting that Ashima can't enjoy motherhood because she feels so distressed. At home,"she cries as she feeds him, and as she pats him to sleep…She cries after the mailman's visit because there are no letters from Calcutta. She cries when she calls Ashoke at his department and he does not answer."(34) Clearly Ashima is going through a rough time, especially when she is left alone to care for her child.
         Fortunately, Ashima finds some distractions and begins to feel better about herself. It was a great relief when Ashima decided to go out and run some errands because she finally begins to feel better. After this incident, Ashima begins to develop a more positive attitude and starts going out more along with Gogol, her child. She becomes even more lively after planning to go visit her family over the winter. She decides to buy some presents but unfortunately, she forgets them in the train on her way back home. Ashima is disconsolate and,"For the rest of the afternoon she is furious with herself, humiliated at the prospect of arriving in Calcutta empty-handed."(42) However, Ashima learns that her things are returned to the lost and found and, "this small miracle causes Ashima to feel connected to Cambridge in a way she has not previously thought possible."(43) Finally, Ashima has experienced a sense of happiness directly linked to the place which is now her home, and it makes her realize that not everything is as bad as she makes it out to be.

  

Underground man

The first part of Notes from Underground by Fyodor Dostoevsky was a bit difficult to read but at the same time, it was interesting to decipher the underground man’s thoughts. At first, I dismissed the underground man as being totally crazy because he simply contradicts himself too much and it takes away his credibility. Further into the book however, I realized that it is important to pay attention to his contradictions without easily dismissing his opposing arguments.
            As I read, I noticed some similarities between the underground man and other characters I have read about. At one point, the underground man talks about the difficulties he would encounter if he ever wanted to take revenge and he says, “I would certainly never have made up my mind to do anything, even if I had been able to.” (Dostoevsky 9). When I read this I immediately thought of Hamlet because throughout the play he keeps telling himself that he will kill Claudius but it takes him a long time to actually go through with it. Neither Hamlet nor the underground man are men of action because they are very indecisive.
           At the end of part one,the underground man reveals that even though he refers to an audience while writing, it is only to make it easier for himself to express his thoughts. Then he moves on to add that a memory from the past has been bothering him and  says, “For some reason I believe that if I write it down I will get rid of it.”( Dostoevsky 38). When I read this it reminded me of Esperanza from The House on Mango Street who also resorts to writing in order to escape and free herself from the memories that cause her pain. Both of these characters rely on writing to help rid themselves of their troubled thoughts.
           I hope that during the second part of Notes from Underground, the underground man will reveal the memory that has been floating around in his mind.

A More Complete Story

 A More Complete Story  

In Things Fall Apart and The House on Mango Street, Chinua Achebe and Sandra Cisneros present a more encompassing view of the Ibo and Mexicans by focusing on a member that is a part of these groups,  acknowledging the dark side of their communities, and showing their aspirations to succeed in life. The House on Mango Street is a story about a young girl named Esperanza who is ashamed of her community and wishes to escape it.  The single stories about the Ibo and Mexicans are very similar, the most common stereotypes classify them as  poor, violent, and ignorant. Achebe and Cisneros attempt to complete this single story through Okonkwo and Esperanza who are individuals that share their thoughts about their own people. Through these characters, both authors show the flaws of the Ibo and Mexicans and undertake the task of further explaining them. Achebe and Cisneros create characters with imperfections but although they have their flaws, they are strong individuals who will try to achieve greatness despite the difficulties they encounter. 

Achebe and Cisneros create the characters of  Okonkwo and Esperanza, and use them as tools to provide insight on their communities. Through Okonkwo, Achebe presents the Ibo as hard working people and he explains that, “During the planting season Okonkwo worked daily on his farms from cock-crow until the chickens went to roost.” (Okonkwo 13) Okonkwo is a man that wakes up eager to work and that puts a lot of labor into his farming. Cisneros also presents Mexicans as hard workers through Esperanza’s story of a neighbor. Esperanza explains how the man saved money to bring his wife and child from another country, and in order to do so, "He worked two jobs He came home late and he left early. Every day." (Cisneros 76).The man was determined to bring his family together and he put a lot of effort to see it happen. Achebe and Cisneros present the Ibo and Mexicans as hard working people to reveal their commendable actions.

     In addition to being hard workers, Achebe and Cisneros describe the Ibo and Mexicans as caring people that want the best for their family. Achebe explains that, “Okonkwo wanted his son to be a great farmer and a great man. He would stamp out the disquieting signs of laziness which he thought he already saw in him.” (Achebe 28) Since Okonkwo had to work himself up from the bottom, he wants to make sure that it will be easier for his son to become a great farmer. In The House on Mango Street, Esperanza’s mom also wants her to be successful, and she tells her, “I could’ve been somebody, you know? Esperanza, you go to school. Study hard.” (Cisneros 91) As opposed to Okonkwo, Esperanza’s mom didn’t achieve much, but just like him, she wants her child to have a bright future. Achebe and Cisneros shed light on the good qualities of the Ibo and Mexicans to complete the single story.

In order to capture the true essence of the Ibo and Mexicans, Achebe and Cisneros acknowledge their imperfections because they are made up of both their admirable and undesirable traits combined. Mexicans as well as the Ibo are considered to live under a patriarchal society where men have most of the power. Okonkwo shares that, “No matter how prosperous a man [is], if he [is] unable to rule his women and children (and especially his women) he [is] not really a man.” (Achebe 53) Within the clan, the power of men is defined by imposing dominance over women and it becomes a larger problem when men assert their power through physical abuse. When Okonkwo’s wife comes home late from plaiting her hair, he is furious, “And when she [returns] he [beats] her very heavily.”(Achebe 29). Although she hasn’t committed  a great offense, Okonkwo uses the power he has over his wife to punish her. Similar to the Ibo, Esperanza shares that, “Mexicans don’t like their women strong.”(Cisneros 10), and also discusses the story of Sally who gets hit by her father.  Esperanza says that, “Sally doesn’t tell about that time he hit her with his hands just like a dog, she said, like if I was an animal. He thinks I’m going to run away like his sisters who made the family ashamed. Just because I’m a daughter, and then she doesn’t say.”(Cisneros 92). It is because Sally is a woman that her father hits her, even when she hasn’t done anything wrong. Cisneros and Achebe recognize that there are occasions when Mexicans and the Ibo transform into ruthless people.

In addition, the Ibo and Mexicans are also seen as violent people and as criminals. During the onset of imperialism, “Three converts had gone into the village and boasted openly that all the gods were dead and impotent and that they were prepared to defy them by burning all their shrines. “Go and burn your mothers’ genitals,” said one of the priests. The men were seized and beaten until they streamed with blood.”(Achebe 154). The Ibo are outraged that missionaries criticize their beliefs and also threaten them, so they attack them. It is usually not part of their nature to attack someone, but imperialism has made them change their ways. In the House on Mango Street, Esperanza tells about the time when a neighbor's cousin gave her a ride in a very fancy car, “The seventh time we drove into the alley we heard sirens...real quiet at first, but then louder. Louie’s cousin stopped the car right where we were and said, Everybody get out of the car.” (Cisneros 24). He was trying to run away from the cops because he had stolen the car. Achebe and Cisneros show both the positives and the negatives of the Ibo and Mexicans so they won’t be defined by only one or the other.

Achebe and Cisneros explain how the communities that Okonkwo and Esperanza live in influence their desire to succeed, and in doing so they show a missing part of the single story. Okonkwo grew up in poverty, and he, “did not have the start in life which many young men usually had. He did not inherit a barn from his father. There was no barn to inherit.” (Achebe 16). Since his father hadn’t been successful, Okonkwo had to work very hard to gain respect and a title among the Ibo. Achebe also states that, “His life had been ruled by a great passion - to become one of the lords of the clan. That had been his life-spring.” (Achebe 131), and Okonkwo worked hard to achieve it. Despite the troubled neighborhood that Esperanza is a part of, she wants to be like the four skinny trees, “Four who grew despite concrete, four who reach and do not forget to reach. For whose only reason is to be and be.” ( Cisneros 75). She wants to become someone successful despite of where she comes from, and doesn’t want to give up until she reaches her goal. Esperanza wishes that “One day [she’ll] own [her] own house but [she] won’t forget who [she is] or where [she]came from.” (Cisneros 87). Esperanza’s Mexican roots will always be a part of her and she accepts it because being Mexican is what drives her to become the person she wants to be.

Okonkwo and Esperanza share the goal of wanting to become someone important that others can look up to.

   In Things Fall Apart and The House on Mango Street, Achebe and Cisneros attempt to provide a more complete story of Mexicans and the Ibo.They create characters who are strong individuals and who allow us to see the admirable attributes and the faults of their people. Both the Ibo and Mexicans are lions, in some cases they might be violent and dangerous, but they are also strong willed and they won’t go down without a fight. The authors recognize that there is always room for improvement and show this through Okonkwo’s and Esperanza’s aspirations for a better life. Achebe and Cisneros believe that people must be recognized for both their strengths and their flaws because it is the only way in which their stories will be complete.

Things Fall Apart: ObiErika and Nwoye

          After reading the first two parts of Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe, Obierika and Nwoye are two characters that have really caught my attention. Just to make things clear, this is not only due to the fact that Obierika has my name in it! 
       Like everyone else in their clan, Obierika and Nwoye follow the rules that have been set up by their ancestors, but they begin to question why certain actions must be followed through.
       After Okonkwo flees Umuofia because he accidentally kills a boy, Obierika is one of the men who burns and destroys Okonkwo's home in order to cleanse the land. When the deed is done and Obierika is all alone, he begins to ponder over the situation and over his friend's misfortune.  He wonders, "Why should a man suffer so grievously for an offense he [has] committed inadvertently?"(Achebe 125)Obierika does not understand why Oknonkwo should be punished and forced to leave his home, when his action was merely an accident. Furthermore, he goes on to remember how he threw away his twin children even though they hadn't done anything to deserve this faith. Obierika is filled with conflicted emotions and questions why such unfair situations must occur to innocent people. 
        Just like Obierika, Nwoye does not agree with some of the clans orders. In his childhood, Nwoye was scarred by the death of Ikemefuna who was like a brother to him. His death was ordered by the Oracle and the orders were driven out by Nwoye's own father. It was no surprise when Nwoye felt attracted towards the white men and their new religion. It offered a different perspective in which Nwoye hoped to obtain explanations which he had not received from his own people.

"How to Spot a Liar"

        In this Ted Talk, Pamela Meyer talks about different ways that you can tell if a person is lying. It is amazing to think that all persons are liars. Even though we say we are against lying, because from a young age we are taught that it is wrong, our words are discredited by the lies we constantly make. 

Meyer says that 1 year olds lie by using concealment, 2 year olds bluff, 5 year olds lie and manipulate by using flattery, 9 year olds use cover ups, and by the time you are a teenager, you lie to your parents in 1 out of 5 interactions. It is incredible how from a young age we begin to lie to our parents in order to stay out of trouble and rid ourselves of consequences due to our bad behavior. We don't realize that by lying instead of admitting our wrongdoings we are making it even worse. According to Meyer, everyday you are likely to be lied to from 10 to 200 times a day, so I suggest from now on you be on the lookout! 

There are many signs that you can look for to tell if a person is lying. Usually we believe that when a person is lying, they will fidget and they won't make eye contact, but when people lie they keep their upper body straight and they make sure to look you straight in the eye. People who lie usually shift their blinking rate, point their feet towards an exit, lower their vocal tone, and put objects between them and the people they are lying to. Also, people who lie will use way too much detail and use formal rather than informal language, for example they will say "did not" instead of "didn't". I learned that women lie more to protect other people, men lie more about themselves, and extroverts lie more than introverts. People lie for many different reasons it might be to get out of trouble, to blame another, or to protect someone else. 

I found it interesting how Meyer explained that lying is a cooperative act. Usually we think of the person being lied to as the victim, but Meyer is trying to say that the person who is being lied to is unconsciously taking part in the lie. The only way that we can abstain from participating in a lie is to learn to identify the signs of a person who is lying. When people learn to identify these signs, lying will become more looked down on. Only then will honesty become more valued in our every day lives.

Hamlet: Denmark High School for troubled kids

       Hamlet has been performed by many productions in different settings and time periods. If I had to choose an alternate time and place for Hamlet  to be performed in I would choose a high school for troubled kids in the present day. To be more exact, in Denmark High School run by principal Claudius and vice principal Gertrude. This high school would be of high prestige and very well known to enforce good behavior on their students. Hamlet would be spending his senior year at Denmark high school as opposed to boarding school because he has been asked by his parents to serve as a model of the perfect student for the others. Polonius would serve as a counselor for the kids and a close friend of Claudius that he trusts very much. His daughter Ophelia would be one of the many trouble makers in the school that is obviously not good enough for Hamlet. Horatio, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern would be students and friends of Hamlet.

An interesting part of the play to be performed in this time and place would be Act 3 Scene 1. In this scene Rosencrantz and Guildenstern would be meeting with Claudius in his office, ashamed of disappointing their dear principal because they failed to find out what was causing Hamlet's madness. Then to try to prove that Hamlet was going mad from his love for Ophelia, Polonius would set up a meeting between them. Ophelia would be all alone in a classroom pretending she is a hardworking student that is doing her homework. Hamlet would walk in and would find it suspicious that she is actually working for once. Meanwhile Claudius and Polonius would be spying on them through an air vent. Hamlet would become aware of the set up and make fun of poor Ophelia for thinking that he ever cared about her. Then Ophelia would run out of the classroom broken hearted. Claudius would then resolve that Hamlet is not mad for love and would then plan for Hamlet to go back to boarding school.

"To Be or Not to Be" Soliloquy

    

      In Act 3 Scene 1 of Hamlet, Hamlet delivers his "To Be or Not to Be" soliloquy. In this soliloquy he is debating whether it's better to suffer the troubles that life brings you, or to take matters into your own hands, and end your troubles by committing suicide. Here are two videos that I found portraying the scene. 

The only aspect in which the videos relate is that they made the scene appear very dramatic. In Gibson's video, the fact that Hamlet is surrounded by tombs makes his words about death seem more vivid. In Branagh's video, Hamlet staring at himself in the mirror makes it seem like he is searching for an answer in himself.

In Gibson's video, Hamlet is in a dark underground crypt surrounded by many tombs. This setting has a huge impact on the soliloquy that Hamlet is delivering because you can see his strong desire to be in their place. I like how throughout the video Hamlet walks around, sinks to the floor, and can't stay still because it shows his restlessness about the subject at hand. In this video, Hamlet emphasizes the downside of death, and his distress about what awaits in the afterlife. Hamlet also shows his anger about being too scared to die and having to endure what comes. 

As opposed to Gibson's video, Branagh's video incorporates Ophelia, Polonius and Claudius. This setting really differs from Gibson's because there is a lot of light, mirrors, and the color white. I like how at the beginning, Hamlet walks in, looks around, and makes sure he is alone. Then he proceeds to study himself in the mirror and question what he should do. I think it was a great idea for Hamlet to take out a dagger because it really shows that he wants to kill himself and end his troubles. He progressively walks closer to the mirror and puts the dagger dangerously close to his face.

Overall, I preferred Gibson's video a lot more than Branagh's. First of all, I think that the setting of the crypt made Hamlet's words a lot more credible. Also, in this video Hamlet shows many of his emotions such as confusion, anger, and concern. In Branagh's video, I don't think Hamlet shows much emotion at all.

Short Works Edited Paragraph

Original Conclusion Paragraph:
The couple's paranoia to keep their family safe from any outside threat ends up backfiring at them. Their incentive to keep their home safe ends up dying not because of any outside threat, but because of their overprotection. Gordimer portrays the couple as cautious people that eventually become paranoid to prove her point that too much of anything is bad for you. Things are only good in moderation because if you over do, the results might be tragic.

Revised Conclusion Paragraph:
     The couple's paranoia to keep their family safe from any outside threat ends up backfiring at them. Their  main incentive to keep their home safe ends up dead, not because of any outside threat like they feared so, but due to their overprotection. Gordimer portrays the couple as cautious people that eventually become paranoid to prove her point that too much fear, especially if it is unaccounted for, can lead to tragic results, and that it is best to live in moderation. 

Branagh's Decent Portrayal of Hamlet

Kenneth Branagh's depiction of Act 1 Scene 5 of Hamlet was acceptable. Although there were many parts that ruined the mood, there were also some that I thought were true to the play.

At the very beginning of the scene, it really bothered me that the ghost of Hamlet's father scared him by coming out of nowhere and by grabbing him by the arm. In his discussion of the scene, Branagh did say that he meant for Hamlet to be scared, but it would have been a lot better if Hamlet had been scared because he was about to see a ghost, not because the ghost purposefully scared him by grabbing him. Another thing that I disliked was that throughout the entire video, the ghost was speaking in a very annoying, raspy, and whispering voice. Hamlet is hard enough to understand, and the ghost's voice made it even harder to tell what he was saying. Also, I think that throughout most of the chat with the ghost,  Hamlet had a blank expression and it was hard to tell what he was feeling. 

The best part of Branagh's portrayal of scene 5 was when they passed the background story and the recounting of events. I liked the image of the old king sleeping peacefully in his garden, although they don't provide much detail about that scene in the play, I think it was portrayed well in the video. Same goes for the poisoning of the king, it was a good touch to pass a visual of  how awful the poisoning of the king was because it made it even worse that his own brother would cause him that pain. Branagh said that he wanted Claudius to look affected by killing his brother. Although it is not mentioned how Claudius reacts in the actual play, by making Claudius look affected, Branagh made it seem like he might have regretted killing his brother.The illustration of Gertrude spending time with both the old King and Claudius added to the point that she moved on too fast, which is just how Hamlet explains it in the play. I also liked that at the end, Hamlet seemed vulnerable and showed some of his grief and affection by touching his father's ghost's hand.

The best aspects of Branagh's portrayal of Act 1 Scene 5 of Hamlet were definitely the parts that showed the illustrations of the background story. They provided insight on what Hamlet might have been imagining as his father's ghost spoke to him.Some of Branagh's choices on how to present the ghost could have been better, but overall his depiction of the scene wasn't too bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNF1MADUz2E&feature=player_embedded

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgQiHPDvpx0&feature=player_embedded

First Impression of King Claudius

       When king Claudius is introduced in Hamlet, he immediately sets off a bad impression. The first thing shakespeare lets us know about Claudius is that he marries his dead brothers wife, an action that I find very unsettling. Claudius is doing his best to demonstrate his superiority now that he is king, but in my opinion, he comes off as arrogant. I also think he serves as a bad fatherly role towards Hamlet by being insensible and inconsiderate towards his feelings.

Only one month after the death of his brother, the old king of Denmark, Claudius marries his wife. He makes it seem like he is providing a balance of emotions for himself and for the kingdom, " Have we (as 'twere with a defeated joy, /With an auspicious and a dropping eye, / With mirth in funeral and dirge in marriage, / In equal scale weighing delight and dole)" (1.2.10-13). But how can he feel both sorrow for his brother's death, and happiness for marrying his dead brothers wife? I find this balance to be unnatural and his ideas contradicting. Still, he pretends that everything is fine when it most clearly isn't.

During his speech to the court, Claudius seems insulted because Fortinbras doesn't believe in his ability as king, "Now follows that  you know. Young Fortinbras, /Holding a week supposal of our worth/ Or thinking by our late dead brothers death / Our state to be disjoint and out of frame," (1.2.17-20).  Since the kingdom is at its lowest for just losing its king, and because Fortinbras doubts the abilities of Claudius, he is ready to get back land won over by the old king. Claudius is clearly insulted by this criticism and has to show that he is worthy of the throne by resolving the problem. Claudius is proud and arrogant, and he is most likely looking to surpass the old king and be more admired than he ever was.  

When Claudius tries acting fatherly towards Hamlet, he does a pretty bad job. First of all, he steels Hamlet's throne by marrying his mother after his father's death. Then he tells Hamlet to look at him as if he were his father, when clearly Hamlet does not want his father to be replaced. Instead of being understanding towards Hamlet's feelings and providing comfort, Claudius tells him that, "But to persevere/ In obstinate condolement is a course/ Of impious stubbornness. 'Tis unmanly grief. / It shows a will most incorrect to heaven," (1.2.96-99).Who wants to hear that they should man up and stop mourning when they've just lost a loved one? No one, especially not from the person that is trying to replace them. 

       So far, my first impression of king Claudius is very lousy and I'm expecting the worst from him.

Paranoia in "Once upon a Time"

Paranoia in “Once Upon a Time”

      Nadine Gordimer portrays the married couple in “Once Upon a Time” as alert and overprotective people who try to turn their home into a safer place. At first, they only seem cautious  when it comes to their security, but as the story progresses, they make more drastic changes, turning their home into an uncomfortable place. Towards the end, the couple’s need for protection makes them paranoid and causes the death of their own child.Gordimer portrays the couple as alert and overprotective to warn others against resorting to extremes because the results may be catastrophic. 
When Gordimer introduces the couple, they are aware of possible dangers, and so they have the basic means of caution. They are careful about what people they bring into their house and so they have, "a housemaid who [is] absolutely trustworthy and an itinerant gardener who [is] highly recommended by the neighbors" (Gordimer 232). These are people they can count on to contribute to the security of their home because they are not strangers that might be dangerous or have bad habits, they are people who can be trusted. In addition, Gordimer also says that the couple is, "inscribed in a medical benefit society, their pet dog [is] licensed, they [are] insured against fire, flood damage and theft , and subscribed to the local Neighborhood Watch"(Gordimer 232). The couple has medical insurance and protection against some things that they can’t control, like their dog running away or natural disasters. In addition, they volunteer to keep the surrounding neighborhood safe as well. These are all common precautions that many people take, which only makes them conscious about the dangers that surround them. 
However, as the story unfolds, Gordimer makes the couple seem more and more worried about their safety. Since the couple is afraid of housebreaking, they install burglar bars and, "from every window and door in the house where they [are] living happily ever after they now [see] the trees and sky through bars"(Gordimer 233). Gordimer makes the couple cage themselves in in order to keep the danger out. Also, in order to prevent burglaries, the couple has a security system installed which doesn't end up serving its purpose well. This happens because, "When the little boy's pet cat [tries] to climb in by the fanlight to keep him company in his little bed at night, as it customarily [has] done, it [sets] off the alarm keening through the house" (Gordimer 232). Instead of warning from attempts of breaking in, the alarm announced the whereabouts of the cat and so they get used to the sound of the alarm. Having the burglar bars and the alarm system installed makes the couple lose some of their comforts because they are bothersome mechanisms that disrupt their peace.
At the end, Gordimer makes the couple's need for protection turn into an obsession and their son suffers the consequences of their actions. Their ultimate response to acquire security is to get, "a gang of workmen [come] and [stretch] the razor-bladed coils all around the walls of the house"(Gordimer 235). The couple installs a very dangerous mechanism and it comes with dire results. While playing a game, their son gets tangled in it and," the bleeding mass of the little boy [is] hacked out of the security coil with saws, wire-cutters, choppers, and they [carry] it the man, the wife, the hysterical trusted housemaid and the weeping gardener into the house" (Gordimer 236). Instead of serving as protection from people on the outside, it turns out to be deadly for their child.
The couple's paranoia to keep their family safe from any outside threat ends up backfiring at them. Their incentive to keep their home safe ends up dying not because of any outside threat, but because of their overprotection. Gordimer portrays the couple as cautious people that eventually become paranoid to prove her point that too much of anything is bad for you. Things are only good in moderation because if you over do, the results might be tragic. 

Once upon a Time Revised Intro

        Nadine Gordimer portrays the married couple in Once Upon a Time  as alert and overprotective people who try to turn their home into a safer place. Gordimer portrays them this way to warn others against resorting to extremes because the results may be catastrophic. At first, they only seem cautious  when it comes to their security.  As the story progresses however, they start to make more drastic changes in their home and turn it into an uncomfortable place to live in. Towards the end, their need for protection makes them paranoid and causes the death of their own child.

 

I. When the couple is introduced, they seem wary about their security just like anyone else might be, and they have the basic means of caution.

a) " They had a housemaid who was absolutely trustworthy and an itinerant gardener who was highly     recommended by the neighbors. 

b) "They were inscribed in a medical benefit society, their pet dog was licensed, they were insured against fire, flood damage and theft , and subscribed to the local Neighborhood Watch."

II. Soon enough, the couple begins to worry more and more about their safety and they begin to install bothersome mechanisms in their house.

a) "So from every window and door in the house where they were living happily ever after they now saw the trees and sky through bars"

b)When the little boy's pet cat tried to climb in by the fanlight to keep him company in his little bed at night, as it customarily had done, it set off the alarm keening through the house."

III. The couple's need for protection turns into an obsession and their son suffers the consequences of their actions.

a) " Next day a gang of workmen came and stretched the razor-bladed coils all around the walls of the house"

b)"the bleeding mass of the little boy was hacked out of the security coil with saws, wire-cutters, choppers, and they carried it the man, the wife, the hysterical trusted housemaid and the weeping gardener into the house."

 

Short Works Intro

          Characterization is the way an author depicts a character, and it allows us to understand the actions of those characters. The married couple in Once Upon a Time believe that their neighborhood is dangerous and in order to ensure their safety, they isolate themselves from the outside. Nadine Gordimer portrays the married couple as alert and overprotective people who try to turn their home into a safer place. Gordimer portrays them this way to warn others against resorting to extremes because the results may be catastrophic.

 

 

Dreaming of the past

        In Robinsons poem, Miniver is a character that wishes he had been born in a different time period and feels like he doesn't belong. 

As I read the poem, the first thing I noticed was that Miniver Cheevy is a pretty odd name for a character. The meaning behind it actually gives us an insight on the character himself. The word Minniver is the name of a type of fur used in the old days for robes of nobles, and the word cheevy is similar to the word cheval which means horse in french. This shows us that perhaps Minniver sees himself as a noble wearing those fine robes, and also as a knight. Unfortunately for him, that is not the case. 

Miniver spends most of  his time "[dreaming] and [resting] from his labors". He sits around wondering how it would be like if he had been born in the "days of old". He chooses to blame faith for his situation instead of doing something to make his life better.

What Robinson is trying to tell us through her character is that we must not pity ourselves if we are feeling miserable; instead we must do something about it and appreciate what we do have.

Isn't it Ironic?

      In Barbie Doll by Marge Piercy, the irony starts right off the bat beginning with the title. When seeing the word Barbie one immediately thinks of an image of perfection, and this creates expectations that will not be met.
      The poem starts off with the author setting up a normal,young, and beautiful girl like any other. This image immediately changes in what the author calls,"the magic of puberty,but of course there is nothing magical about it because the girl gets criticized for having a big nose and fat legs. This is an example of verbal irony because the author doesn't mean what she's saying.
      Furthermore, the author goes on to say some good qualities about the girl, "She was healthy, tested intelligent, possessed strong arms and back, abundant sexual drive and manual dexterity."This description shows masculine traits that don't fit the conventional ideas of beauty. People told her to change, but eventually she grew tired of not being accepted and, "so she cut up her nose and her legs and offered them up." meaning she took her own life.
     It's not until she's lying in her casket that people call her pretty, and the poem ends saying that it is a happy ending, presumably because the girl got what she wanted and was finally seen by others as pretty. But do they really mean it? Do they truly see her beauty now that it is too late or do they simply feel bad for her and feel the need to say it? Yet again more irony.
     I believe that the author uses irony in her poem to create exaggeration and really stress the point of how far you have to go to be accepted by others.

The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas

         Hello, my name is Erika and in my blog I will write about my ideas and thoughts about literature, and by doing so I hope to discover more about myself as a reader and a writer. 

        Without a doubt, my favorite summer text was The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas by Ursula Le Guin. As I read it, I tried to imagine the perfect city that the author was describing, but towards the middle of the story the author shattered the image of perfection that I had created in my head. When she mentioned the poor child that was kept in the basement, I was intrigued by the fact that the citizens of Omelas truly believed that their happiness depended on the misery of that boy. I also found it very inhumane that although everybody knew that the boy was in there, and they even went to see him, they didn't do anything to help him. This aroused a strong feeling of impotence inside of me because the child didn't deserve to be in that situation.

        It was a bit of a comfort that at least some of the people that went to see the child just couldn't deal with it, and to find out that, "They go on. They leave Omelas, they walk ahead into the darkness, and they do not come back. The place they go to is a place even less imaginable to most of us than the city of happiness." The people who leave are trying to escape the unfairness of what the city is doing to the child. Still, instead of helping the child or taking him with them, they simply leave and think they are doing the right thing by not being part of it anymore. They leave towards a mysterious place that they hope won't involve the suffering of others.