Hughes and McKay

Langston Hughes and Claude McKay both share some similarities in their poem writing, however they also have some differences in structure, style and content. McKay comes off as more of a story telling poet. He writes his poems in a more story-like format, he doesn’t always rhyme or change the line lengths like Hughes does. I also feel like McKay uses many more metaphors and visualization. He uses a lot of color words along with strong verbs to create his scenes and/or settings. He also seems to speak more about random scenes, with no specific characters or time period, he just describes fantastical locations with the many descriptive words he uses.

Hughes writes his poems in a more playful, Shakespearian format. He rhymes more of his lines than McKay and repeats himself within individual poems more as well. Not all of his lines within his poems are the same, however some are more similar to McKay’s story-like format. Hughes seems to talk about specific people or locations in his poems. He definitely refers to specific places in New York during a certain time period. It might be about his life which, in my mind, makes his poems a little more personal than McKay because people can relate to them.

Individuals can also relate to McKay’s poems, however it isn’t as straightforward.

           

internal and external

In the next chapters in Things Fall Apart, Okonkwo is forced to leave his village after an incident during a celebration at his village, which forces him and his family to leave for 7 years. This causes an internal conflict in Okonkwo because it is hard for him to accept the fact that a man of his pride and power must leave the village in which he originally had so much power. When they move to Mbanta, he and his family are forced to start all over with their obis, farm and life. Okonkwo was already beginning to have internal conflicts starting with his killing of Ikemefuna and the near death of his daughter Ezinma. Okonkwo starts to think he is a woman because he begins to show and have feelings about what is going on around him. He thinks too highly of his lifestyle and the way he thinks things should be. The external conflict that appears in the second part of the book is the arrival of the white man and how their religion and ways of life are pressed upon the native people. This is a conflict much larger than just Okonkwo and his family. The missionaries that arrived in the villages of the native people are trying to convert the natives by telling them everything they have ever believed is fake and unnecessary. A number of people from the village of Mbanta and Umofia convert to Christianity from the native religion. This conflict affects everybody, whether they convert or if they remain loyal to their beliefs.

The Rigidness of Okonkwo

In Things Fall Apart, Okonkwo is a strong and stubborn man who does not accept any sign of weakness from his wives, nor his children. He is like this because his father was too weak and lazy and eventually left Okonkwo nothing when he passed away. Okonkwo was forced to be his own father at a young age to build up his own farm because his father did nothing. Having not read the whole book, I can assume that Okonkwo’s rigidness and strictness is going to lead to his eventual downfall. When a member of his family bothers him or does something wrong, he beats them, he shows no signs of emotion and doesn’t let his children be children.

Okonkwo doesn’t realize that being the complete opposite of his father is just as bad as being exactly like his father. Yes, his father was lazy and yes, Okonkwo gets stuff done and is a strong man, but there is always room to be relaxed and have some fun. He is always thinking about work even in times when he is not allowed to work. He has a polluted view of how one should live his life because of the way his father was. So maybe one can blame his father more for not only leaving him nothing, but also upsetting Okonkwo to the point where his life goal is to NOT be his father, which is also not good for Okonkwo.

I’m curious to see what happens to Okonkwo because I am convinced the title of the book is about him and his soon demise and I believe it is going to be a result of the relationship, or lack there of, with his father.

The Madmen

Both Lu Xun and Nikolai Gogol’s stories both speak about an individual that has some sort of disease that eventually causes the person to lose a bit of sanity. However, this transition from a sane person into an insane one occurs more evidently in Gogol’s story. In Lu Xun’s Diary of a Madman the individual maintains sensible mindset, besides being paranoid that everyone else in the world is out to eat him of course. However in Gogol’s story, the individual begins to believe and say things that are completely absurd: he believes he is the King of Spain and he swears that two dogs communicate through speech and through letters. I feel as though that Gogol’s madman is also more visibly insane to the other characters in the book, but Lu Xun’s madman doesn’t have as much contact with other people.

The most interesting aspect of these stories is how convinced the writer is that all the events happening are completely true. I thought it was strange how the entries in Lu Xun’s madman’s diary end very near to when they are read. After reading the story, the question still remained in my mind if the madman is still mad or if he has truly recovered and I found myself questioning if all of the cannibal stuff is actually true.

In Gogol’s story, I thought it was interesting how in the end, the madman almost convinces the reader that he has regained his sanity in jail, but then dismisses that idea with the last statement of the story. Both stories deal with individuals seeming paranoid with all of the people and things around them. I definitely have a lot more questions about Lu Xun’s story than Gogol’s story however.

Nora

Gender seems to be one, if not the most, important theme in A Doll House, but there is definitely a transformation of the gender roles from beginning to the end. In the beginning of the play, Torvald speaks to Nora as if she is a child. He bribes her with money to make her happy and seems to talk slowly to her as if she wouldn’t understand if she spoke any other way. Nora, at the beginning of the play, embraces it, or maybe even doesn’t think much of it. She is content with the way Torvald is willing to give her money to buy things. I see it as more of a father/daughter relationship, in which the daughter relies on the father for money and support. The only difference is that Nora and Torvald have a family together.

At the end of the play, Nora has a sort of awakening, realizing that the life she is living is not the life for her. Even after Krogstad decides to not blackmail them, Nora still feels that the life she is living with Krogstad is not for her. At this point I felt as though the gender role flipped. Torvald seems to be the individual that doesn’t understand and Nora needs to repeat herself and talk slowly to him so he understands what is going on at the end of the play. Nora no longer wants to be a puppet of Torvald, even though at some points she has control of Torvald in asking for money and through her lies that he doesn’t know about. I think the story is about Nora: the events that take place in her home, her sort of workplace, and it is her transformation.

I took it as a sort of existentialist awakening for Nora because she finds out that being in the family with Torvald is not what she wants. She knows that living with him and her kids is not the way she wants to live her life, despite the money and her kids.

Raskolnikov’s Article

Raskolnikov’s article does give some insight to why he committed the murder, however he does not exactly meet the criteria of his own writings. He gives examples of “extraordinary” people like Newton and how they could have gotten away with murder in order to support the greater good. Although Raskolnikov believes murdering Alena Ivanova was for the greater good, it didn’t have nearly as large an effect as Newton or others he had mentioned. Killing Alena might have helped a certain group of individuals at the moment and in the future, but it won’t affect the whole entire world. I don’t think his murder is directly related to the article, however he may believe he did it for the same reasons.

If Raskolnikov is indeed comparing the article to himself that means that he considers himself to be an “extraordinary” individual. I think it’s interesting how he would be considered “extraordinary” by his own standards; he is only extraordinary because he said so. I also found it interesting that he had no idea that this article was published. How could he forget about this article about a topic so close to the very important crime that he committed? I found it odd that he was able to speak for so long about his article although he was uncomfortable with the questions that Zametov and Porfiry were asking him.

Raskolnikov’s thought processes are definitely different than the rest of the characters in the book, and everyone else knows it. He is trying to cover himself more and more, but I believe everyone else is becoming more suspicious of him. It is becoming more evident that he does have some sort of mental illness.

Billy Budd: Innocent or Guilty

The relation of good and evil to Billy and Claggart is pretty obvious, however one can apply the titles of guilty and innocent to the same individuals. In appearance alone, without any action by either individual, one can tell who is “good” and who is “evil”. Claggart is an old pale man that is using every ounce of his being to get Billy Budd in trouble, while Billy is a strong, rosy-cheeked young man that everyone admires. Billy is definitely the “good” individual, but is it only because of his naivety or is he genuinely a good person. He seems to do good only because he does not know any better. For example, when Billy is visited by the “afterguardsman” and is asked about the mutiny, he only becomes aggressive with the man because of the bribe, not because of the idea of mutiny. Billy knows that a bribe is a bad thing, but he is confused about the idea of mutiny. He doesn’t necessarily dismiss the idea of mutiny, which makes me think that he is not all necessarily good (with the idea of mutiny being a negative thing).

The idea of Billy being “innocent” can be debated in more than one way. Yes, Billy is innocent like a child; he does not have the knowledge of an educated adult, he knows what is right and what is wrong. He will stand for what is clearly right. Taking the word innocence literally in a law sense however, Billy Budd is completely guilty. He killed Claggart in cold blood with a witness present. So Billy can be considered innocent in one way, but he is definitely guilty in another. As for Claggart, he is guilty about lying to Vere about Billy, which in the end causes Billy to get frustrated and eventually strike and kill him.

I think the idea of innocence is a little more complex than the idea of good and evil in Billy Budd.

Style vs Content

I feel as though The Rime of the Ancient Mariner by Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Billy Budd by Herman Melville have more similarities in writing style than in content at the moment (since I have only read the first 5 chapters of Billy Budd). Both writers concentrate on one member of a whole crew of sailors and they tell a story about that specific person. Also the writer digresses from the original story. In The Rime of the Ancient Mariner the main character is telling the majority of the story to some listener. However in Billy Budd the author stops telling the main story to give some background story, which I assume will be important later in the story. It’s interesting to see the different ways the authors leave one story to tell another and later return to the original.

I feel as though there are also similarities between the two protagonists, however I think I will be able to find more similarities as I continue reading Billy Budd. They both seem to be an important part of the crew of their ship. Billy was a big part of the Rights-of-Man and the captain is upset to see him go. The protagonist in The Rime of the Ancient Mariner is the one that kills the albatross, which seemed to be the reason for the rest of the events to occur on the boat.

I think as I continue reading, I will be able to find more similarities between the two stories.

Goodman Brown’s Faith

I believe the story “Young Goodman Brown” by Hawthorne is about religion and keeping beliefs. The story is about Goodman Brown leaving his wife to go take care of some “business” in the woods. He plans on meeting the devil in the woods, or at least that’s what he thinks he is going to do. Being a good man of God, he instantly regrets this decision and finds himself hiding from other people in the town he comes across in the forest. He is hiding because he doesn’t want these people to question his faith (also his wife’s name) or to frown upon him for wanting to meet the devil in the forest.

I think everything changes when he gets to the ceremony. Although it isn’t clear if the ceremony was just a dream or if it actually happened, it still took a toll on Brown’s faith. When he arrives back at town, his view of the people around him have completely changed, although they still go about their business. Goodman Brown loses his faith because of what he saw in the forest; he doesn’t trust anyone because all of these people he assumed to be good people of God partook in a ceremony of the devil.

What is really interesting is that all of the townspeople that were involved in the ceremony are taking part in Christina activities as if nothing had happened at all. Goodman Brown is not like the others in his town and is changed after the ceremony, he doesn’t want to conform and be like the rest of the people in the town. This causes him to change his beliefs for the rest of his life. It seems that the individuals involved in the ceremony are trying to convert more people, but they don’t want everyone to know of their true beliefs. However, what Brown’s experience with the ceremony was all a dream? It still affects Brown and makes him live the rest of his life in gloom. I wonder why he chose to stay in the town with all of these people even though their true beliefs changed him as a person.

Safe Place

In William Wordsworth’s “Lines”, he uses the theme of time and progression to describe a place, which changed in his mind over time. He describes the scenery in great detail, but the details about this place change from stanza to stanza. In the first stanza he uses words like “past” making references that the place he is describing a place that he had seen at one time and he is not necessarily there at the moment. As the poem progresses, Wordsworth describes the place differently, as if it had changed from the past to the present. His description also gets a little darker, as if this place he remembers changed for the worst over time. It can also be a result of Wordsworth growing up and having a different view of the same place, as he gets older.

Wordsworth could also be describing a place that he knew of for his whole life. A place that he could always go to throughout his life because he knew it would always be there. However, it doesn’t necessarily mean it was a physical place; he could be describing a place from memory that he loved very much.

I think he is referring to a safe place that he remembers from his past that he can visualize when he needs to. He might remember the beautiful “green pastoral landscape” if he was experiencing stress or going through a rough time. The changes in time in the poem are Wordsworth’s way of describing the place when he was actually there, to when he could only go to the place in his mind in times of need. It became a dwelling in his mind he was able to access whenever necessary. Although the place might have changed over the years, it never changed in his mind because the memory he has of the place never changed.