Hey guys, so just checking in to report on class today. Well just as we settled in to discuss The Raven, the fire bell rang and so we all had a pleasant outing into nature. Anyway, when we returned to class we got a start on analyzing the raven. Deirdre shared that Lenore, the name of the narrarator's lost love, means "light". The story told in The Raven takes place at midnight, signifying darkness. It seems that for the narrarator the "light of his life has gone out".
In our discussion the word "creepy" also came up regularly haha. While some believed the raven's eerie repetitive response was the main cause for "creepiness"? Mr. Lazarow shared his thoughts that what bothered him most was the narrarator torturing himself with his grief over his dead loved one. The narrarator seemed to be deranged by his grief. As Mr. Laz said, it seems that he was aware that the raven would always give the same response and so he molded his questions appropriately to ones that would twist his grief stricken heart.
The dark contrast of the black raven against the white pallid bust of Pallas a contrast similiar to that of emotion to reason. The bust and the library/study symbolize a tendency towards the neoclassic age of reason and logic while the Raven represents nature and emotion. The raven bursts in from the wild storm outside to intrude upon the narrarators thoughts. The scene is set up realistically as the narrarator is at first bemused by the chaotic entrance of the bird but then because he has failed to find solace in classical writings he decides instead to face his pain by having a conversation with the bird. His masochist tendencies make the focus of the story again on the psychological games a person is capable of playing.
At the end of the story the narrarator tries to rid himself of the Raven but he can never rid himself of the pain of losing his loved one. The spectre of his grief, the raven, will never leave him.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Class Summary- The Fall of the House of Usher
So today we discussed Poe's "The Fall of the House of Usher." While once again there was an awkward silence in the beginning before anyone began talking, attention was brought to the condition of the house as well as the lyrics to the "wild fantasia" of Roderick Usher. The house overall seems to be perfectly intact, but the individual parts (stones) are all decaying and crawling with a white mold. The windows are described as vacant and eye-like, while the mold is seen to be hanging from the roof. This description calls to mind a head- the head of Roderick Usher! Since he has a twin (Madeleine) her "head" appears reflected in the tarn above which the physical House of Usher is set. Going into the house, then, represents a psychological tour of Roderick's mind. A hypochondriac and a man terrified of anybody finding out about his mysteriously ill sister, Rodney is also extremely guilty for what he is doing to the single line of the house of Usher- he refuses to...er...partake in incest with his sister to continue the lineage. Thus, he locks her in a tomb choosing to believe that she is dead in the hope that everyone will forget about her.
Freud's "iceberg" philosophy also come up during discussion. While Freud theorized after this story was written, "TFOTHOS" nonetheless is parallel with his ideas. An iceberg only reveals its top section to the world- this is the "ego," represented by Roderick, since he is the dominant individual in the Usher lineage and his "head" stands above the water. The sister is the "id," or the basement of the brain, characterized by instincts and basic emotions. Not surprisingly, she is locked in the cellar and her "head" is in the water. The narrator represents the "superego," which retains the collective sense of what is acceptable by society's standards (based on the ego and id). The three are inseparable, and all exist at all times at varying degrees. It is important to note how the House of Usher falls apart in the end once Maddy "awakens" and kills Rodney, spreading its broken parts into the tarn.
Freud's "iceberg" philosophy also come up during discussion. While Freud theorized after this story was written, "TFOTHOS" nonetheless is parallel with his ideas. An iceberg only reveals its top section to the world- this is the "ego," represented by Roderick, since he is the dominant individual in the Usher lineage and his "head" stands above the water. The sister is the "id," or the basement of the brain, characterized by instincts and basic emotions. Not surprisingly, she is locked in the cellar and her "head" is in the water. The narrator represents the "superego," which retains the collective sense of what is acceptable by society's standards (based on the ego and id). The three are inseparable, and all exist at all times at varying degrees. It is important to note how the House of Usher falls apart in the end once Maddy "awakens" and kills Rodney, spreading its broken parts into the tarn.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Billy Bud
Hey, it's Amy.
So Billy Bud got us thinking about justice, and is it justice to obey the law, even when you're morals are leading in the opposite direction. One of the last lines of the movie was something like "The law will exist as long as the mind exists." The law is carried out by reason, but we cannot base our decisions on reason alone, or else we are nothing more than computers. There are two types of reasoning, logical and moral. Comparing the case to a case a couple years ago, a woman and her daughter were constantly abused by her husband, and after many years of marriage and this abuse, the daughter hit the father over the head with a pan and killed him. Although the mother and daughter rejoiced the girl still served jail time, just a lesser sentence. Was it right for Billy to receive the full punishment, even though everyone considered Clagat(?) an abuser?
However, I agree that this is not a normal case and that once in uniform, an officer relinquishes his own morals and adopts those of the king or country. It's no longer his decision, he is not an individual. Just like the army willingly accepts the loss of some rights when joining the military, the officers take an oath that they serve not themselves, but the ruler or country. When Billy killed an officer, it was an attack against the king, and he should be punished for the crime from an officer stand point, even though our moral compasses point in the opposite direction.
But I did not want Billy to die and I'm really upset that he did.
So Billy Bud got us thinking about justice, and is it justice to obey the law, even when you're morals are leading in the opposite direction. One of the last lines of the movie was something like "The law will exist as long as the mind exists." The law is carried out by reason, but we cannot base our decisions on reason alone, or else we are nothing more than computers. There are two types of reasoning, logical and moral. Comparing the case to a case a couple years ago, a woman and her daughter were constantly abused by her husband, and after many years of marriage and this abuse, the daughter hit the father over the head with a pan and killed him. Although the mother and daughter rejoiced the girl still served jail time, just a lesser sentence. Was it right for Billy to receive the full punishment, even though everyone considered Clagat(?) an abuser?
However, I agree that this is not a normal case and that once in uniform, an officer relinquishes his own morals and adopts those of the king or country. It's no longer his decision, he is not an individual. Just like the army willingly accepts the loss of some rights when joining the military, the officers take an oath that they serve not themselves, but the ruler or country. When Billy killed an officer, it was an attack against the king, and he should be punished for the crime from an officer stand point, even though our moral compasses point in the opposite direction.
But I did not want Billy to die and I'm really upset that he did.
CLASS REVIEW!
Alright, so the school year is almost over so it's time to review the class!
What I found most helpful about this class in terms of preparation for the AP test (after all, it IS an AP class) were the class discussions. Oftentimes (cough cough during the Puritan packet cough cough) I didn't really understand what the writers we had to read were saying, so it really helped me to gain perspective both through classmates' and Mr. Lazarow's input.
It seemed to me that we were very prepared for the AP test, especially for the rhetorical analysis essay (they posted the essays online by the way). By having timed essays throughout the year, I gained a sense of time so I knew how to start, develop, and wrap up my ideas for an essay. However, I didn't often find myself using the Toulmin model, even though I know that this strategy would have benefited me and that by avoiding it I hurt myself in various parts of the research paper construction. My one criticism, then, would probably be to introduce the Toulmin model earlier in the year. I felt that having semantics at the beginning was appropriate and necessary, but maybe having the Toulmin model follow would be more helpful in helping students to retain the structure Toulmin created. What do you guys think? Am I the only one who didn't use the TM as much as we were supposed to?
On a side note, I would suggest having lots of pictures in the literary packets for...umm...educational purposes?
What I found most helpful about this class in terms of preparation for the AP test (after all, it IS an AP class) were the class discussions. Oftentimes (cough cough during the Puritan packet cough cough) I didn't really understand what the writers we had to read were saying, so it really helped me to gain perspective both through classmates' and Mr. Lazarow's input.
It seemed to me that we were very prepared for the AP test, especially for the rhetorical analysis essay (they posted the essays online by the way). By having timed essays throughout the year, I gained a sense of time so I knew how to start, develop, and wrap up my ideas for an essay. However, I didn't often find myself using the Toulmin model, even though I know that this strategy would have benefited me and that by avoiding it I hurt myself in various parts of the research paper construction. My one criticism, then, would probably be to introduce the Toulmin model earlier in the year. I felt that having semantics at the beginning was appropriate and necessary, but maybe having the Toulmin model follow would be more helpful in helping students to retain the structure Toulmin created. What do you guys think? Am I the only one who didn't use the TM as much as we were supposed to?
On a side note, I would suggest having lots of pictures in the literary packets for...umm...educational purposes?
Death on the Cross (or Mast?)
SAILutations!
Hey everyone - Stephanie here.
As I thought about the movie we just finished watching, Billy Budd, I noticed some underlying themes (or stuff I just thought was a theme but is actually a neat coincidence, you decide...).
I think Cristy mentioned that Billy was going to die for his crew, in a most Jesus-like way according to the Christian faiths. In fact, it almost seemed to me that Claggert was like the Devil, tempting an innocent Jesus-like Budd into evil and seeking to destroy him. Even when he is sentenced to death, he takes it calmly and dies for the sake of the whole crew, who were conspiring to kill Claggert and might have died in Billy's place. This may be taking it a little too far, but Captain Veer and the men at the trial seemed to me like Pontious Pilate and the rest of the citizens that stood by and let Jesus be crucified for the sake of duty and maintaining respect and honor, not for justice.
However, I do not believe Billy Budd to be a direct allegory to Christianity. If Budd were Christ-like, he would have surrendered himself for the people, and would not have struck Claggert down and killed him (whether intentionally or not). I believe Melville wanted a more human figure, so we could empathize with Budd, and perhaps create a more tangible redemption.
Just as a quick side note, the bible was probably the most frequent prop throughout the whole movie...
Hey everyone - Stephanie here.
As I thought about the movie we just finished watching, Billy Budd, I noticed some underlying themes (or stuff I just thought was a theme but is actually a neat coincidence, you decide...).
I think Cristy mentioned that Billy was going to die for his crew, in a most Jesus-like way according to the Christian faiths. In fact, it almost seemed to me that Claggert was like the Devil, tempting an innocent Jesus-like Budd into evil and seeking to destroy him. Even when he is sentenced to death, he takes it calmly and dies for the sake of the whole crew, who were conspiring to kill Claggert and might have died in Billy's place. This may be taking it a little too far, but Captain Veer and the men at the trial seemed to me like Pontious Pilate and the rest of the citizens that stood by and let Jesus be crucified for the sake of duty and maintaining respect and honor, not for justice.
However, I do not believe Billy Budd to be a direct allegory to Christianity. If Budd were Christ-like, he would have surrendered himself for the people, and would not have struck Claggert down and killed him (whether intentionally or not). I believe Melville wanted a more human figure, so we could empathize with Budd, and perhaps create a more tangible redemption.
Just as a quick side note, the bible was probably the most frequent prop throughout the whole movie...
Saturday, May 24, 2008
My friend, Billy Bud
Hey you guys! This is Cristy. I hope everyone had an awesome time at prom and is enjoying the long weekend. I just thought I'd jot down some notes I had on Billy Bud. Mr. Lazaro mentioned that the name of the ship, im guessing, "the rights of man" had been changed from in the book? So maybe this was done to make a theme more obvious to the viewers. Billy Bud is taken from "the rights of man" onto a ship where the rights of man are almost non-existent under the tyranny of Claggert. This fact becomes obvious almost as soon as Billy steps foot on the ship, when a man is flogged in front of the entire crew. No one knows why the man is being punished. The only answer Billy receives is - well, maybe it was just "his turn". One of the crew speculates that even the man who is being flogged probably doesnt even know what his crime was. This gives the impression of opression and injustice. (it also reminds me of 1984, when people would just dissapear at any time, for the slightest reasons.) Mr. Claggert is almost omniscent on the ship, always just a few steps away at any time. He is always lurking in the shadows, ready to step in and deliver discipline. Mr. Claggert's authority on the ship seems endless and he almost seems to take on a god-like role (or more like devil) on the ship, controlling the fates of the lower crew members. He ends up killing one of the main characters. Billy's character, on the other hand, seems to portray innocence, goodness, and generosity as he quickly becomes very popular with his shipmates. He seems very pure, like he has nothing to hide.
The question comes up as to wether Bud's goodness is a result of wisdom or of ignorance. Mr. Claggert cannot believe that Billy could be that kind to him unless it was in irony or in ignorance. It seems like an analysis of human nature. Myself, I also find it hard to believe that Billy can keep neutral feelings toward Mr. Claggert after he caused the death of his friend. The devil believes that man is innately evil and is always there to tempt man and bring out the worst in him. Mr. Claggert is always trying to find out the men in the middle of a mutiny. He even dares them to murder him. all in all, Mr Claggert seems mad. Then when Billy is tempted to join in as part of a mutiny, he refuses. Mr. Claggert hears of his loyalty and instead of being grateful for his loyalty, he frames Billy for a crime that would have the penalty of death.
As we more recently saw, Billy ends up killing Mr. Claggert (when emotion overcomes reason), a triumph of good over evil. But as the trial plays out, Billy might not be exalted as a hero who has vanquished the devil but instead end up receiving an unfair punishment. If he is found guilty i would believe that he would accept his punishment and become a jesus-like figure, sacrificing himself for the rest of the shipmates. But i can only guess, I guess we will see Tuesday! Let me know what your predictions are?! Okay see you guys later.
The question comes up as to wether Bud's goodness is a result of wisdom or of ignorance. Mr. Claggert cannot believe that Billy could be that kind to him unless it was in irony or in ignorance. It seems like an analysis of human nature. Myself, I also find it hard to believe that Billy can keep neutral feelings toward Mr. Claggert after he caused the death of his friend. The devil believes that man is innately evil and is always there to tempt man and bring out the worst in him. Mr. Claggert is always trying to find out the men in the middle of a mutiny. He even dares them to murder him. all in all, Mr Claggert seems mad. Then when Billy is tempted to join in as part of a mutiny, he refuses. Mr. Claggert hears of his loyalty and instead of being grateful for his loyalty, he frames Billy for a crime that would have the penalty of death.
As we more recently saw, Billy ends up killing Mr. Claggert (when emotion overcomes reason), a triumph of good over evil. But as the trial plays out, Billy might not be exalted as a hero who has vanquished the devil but instead end up receiving an unfair punishment. If he is found guilty i would believe that he would accept his punishment and become a jesus-like figure, sacrificing himself for the rest of the shipmates. But i can only guess, I guess we will see Tuesday! Let me know what your predictions are?! Okay see you guys later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)