Opposites Attract.....Really???

The one theme of "This Blessed House" that I found to be the most interesting is the difference between Twinkle and Sanjeev. At first I believed that this was just another case of opposite personalities being attracted to one another, but as I continued reading the story, I realized that these two characters are completely different from one another.

At one point, one page 140, Sanjeev is thinking about this one piece of music and how "it was principally music of love and happiness" and not even a sentence later does Twinkle state "By the way, if you want to impress people, I wouldn't play this music. It's putting me to sleep." I actually found this funny while I was reading it because it was just another example how these two characters view things in the world, so completely different! This thought brings me to how concerned Sanjeev is about what others think about him and Twinkle, and analyzing that previous quote, I think Twinkle realizes how worried he is about outward appearances; something I hadn't thought of before writing this post.

Sanjeev even wonders at one point whether or not he loves Twinkle. I can't help but think whether or not the whole idea of opposites attracting isn't entirely true. Can two people just be so different, that the attraction can only linger for so long? I think the concept of opposites attracting is really when two people seem outwardly to be different from one another, but truly, they have the same inner beliefs and ideas. I truly don't think that if two people are really that different, such as Twinkle and Sanjeev, a relationship can't last.

Hindu or Christian?

Though Sanjeev appears to be a character who is practical and doesn't want to have any fun, I do find myself understanding his arguments. Twinkle finds interesting Christian artifacts in their new home, yet Sanjeev is resistant to displaying those objects for fear of what his business colleagues may think. Is he wrong to be afraid of what they think? Personally, although I believe people should do what they want without too much concern of what people will think, I can understand his fear. The bottom line is that he is a Hindu. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with the religion, but imagine the confusion if you walked into a house where you went in with the understanding that a family believed one thing, but showed signs of believing another. Hindu and Christianity are much different religions, and, perhaps, Sanjeev was not so much concerned with loosing his job due to the Christian statues, posters, and other articles, but may be he was concerned with the confusion it would cause. I know I would start to wonder a little if I walked into a house where the family was Roman Catholic, yet they displayed Hindu gods around the home. I know Sanjeev is supposed to be the character who isn't any fun, and just a practical, traditional Indian man, but I can't help but to relate a little to his issue with displaying Twinkle's Christian findings. I do not think that he doesn't appreciate the articles' beauty, but he cannot ever feel comfortable putting them in his house for others, who know his background to see. This, to me, is very understandable.

Every Man Builds His World In His Own Image

I cannot help but think that Sanjeev's concern with image is an obsession. From the very beginning of the story, starting in my opinion on page 137, the reader immediately sees Sanjeev demonstrating his need to keep the house clean and organized to maintain a decent image. As he looks at the mantel her observes that it needs "to be dusted," and in a few paragraphs, we see him organizing his "engineering texts from MIT in alphabetical order on a bookshelf, though it had been several years since he had needed to consult any of them" (137). The reference is being made towards Sanjeev's concern with image--plainly in the text it states that he places his college books on a shelf for looks. He does not need them for anything else because he has not used them for years. With one flip of the page, again we see Sanjeev worrying about the way he looks in regards to others. At the bottom of page 139, Sanjeev refuses to put up the poster of Christ and argues, "What about the housewarming party? They'll want to see all the rooms. I've invited people from the office." Each lines serves as a warning to Twinkle, as Sanjeev mentions and reminds Twinkle that people are coming to the house and will want to see everything (so he doesn't want the relics anywhere). In saving the most important people to impress for the end, he emphasizes that his business associates will be coming to the house.



After this I found myself marking the word "image" next to Sanjeev's name throughout the rest of the story. When looking in the mirror on page 140, he worries that some of his features "detracted, he feared, from what he hoped was a distinguished profile." He wishes he was just an inch taller. He is obsessed with image! He almost has a heart attack (not really) when Twinkle declares her desire to put the plaster of the Virgin Mary in the yard. Sanjeev's concern?: "All the neighbors will see. They'll think we're insane" (146). Shortly following is a glimpse of Sanjeev's past and the way he ponders on past prospective brides in his life and we find out he had even "ranked them in order of preference." Before the party he wants to clear the mantel "if only for the party" (150) and can hardly enjoy himself at the part because he is so worried about the image his home, his new wife and even the image he, himself is giving to his guests.



The idea of image and Sanjeev's obsession could be analyzed and probably made into a really interesting paper. These are just my ideas from reading the text. It seems that Sanjeev has worked hard to be where he is in life and his image is important to and for him. Sanjeevs concern for image would make an interesting contrast when placed next to the independent and care-free nature of Twinkle.

Image

As I read "This Blessed House" I noticed that Sanjeev's character constantly seems to be concerned with image. One of the first times we notice this is when Sanjeev and Twinkle are preparing to have people over to their house and he becomes embarrassed by the poster that is "displayed in [their] home": "what about the housewarming? They'll want to see all the rooms. I've invited people from the office" (4). From this statement we can conclude that Sanjeev is terrified of the judgements his co-workers may place on him if they see that poster. This kind of anxiety surrounds Sanjeev throughout the story as he and Twinkle find various "little biblical menagerie" type items around their house (4). His concern about image made me think of how much image plays a huge role in society today. Because people can be so worried about appearance, it really limits their freedom of expression. We are constantly attacked by the media for how we should look or are suppossed to look. As a result of this, we are forced to limit ourselves to doing things that only the people around us would approve of. This directly relates to "This Blessed House" as Sanjeev refuses to hang biblical decor around their house because of the fear he has that his friends will judge him. This made me wonder...what would we be like, what would the world be like, if we weren't so preoccupied with image?

Is it a "QUIZ" or a TEST!

I want to start thinking about the quiz on Friday. Although, I don't believe that this "quiz" will be easy or short - which is what I most commonly associate with the word "quiz" - so I think I'm going to call it a test. "Quiz" makes me think of a small examination of what we have learned from a small portion of material. I believe we have covered too much so far this year to only be "quizzed" on a small portion of it. I think from my extensive list you will agree that the proper name for this recollection of knowledge is test ...

• So far we have talked about the importance of place in several different ways from the prospective of several different writers. 1) was how you have to know a place, like your home town, in order to write about it in a professional manner from the view of Scott Russel Sanders. 2) was from Annie Dillard about how a writer needs space, like a large warehouse, to get their ideas on paper more efficiently. 3) was about the idea of a room of one's own as a physical or mental place to escape to in order to be able to write from Virgina Woolf. and 4) was from Charlotte Perkins Gilman about the need to express oneself one's mind in the form of writing where ever and however best suited the writer.
• Then we have talked about displacement and how being relocated can effect how one is viewed by others in society and the stereotypes that follow a certain group of people. We only read one piece of literature relating to this by William Shakespeare.
• Further still we may be "quizzed" on how to properly close read a section of a story.
  
• Then it would be possible to be asked about how to develop a thesis that is informative to what the paper is about and answer the question "so what?"
• Which may lead to the proper structure to a college-style essay and how it should be organized and well thought out.
  
• Then maybe we would be asked to do work with conjoining words to link two or more short sentences.
  
• Or maybe some of the grammar and punctuation that we just recently reviewed.
  

As you can see this list could go on and on. But I wont bore you with all the little details. Hopefully, by now, you can see why I don't think "quiz" is the proper name for this recollection of our collective knowledge. I think test is a much better name.

Differences In People Can Work

At the beginning, it was very evident that Sanjeev and Twinkle were very different from each other. She was very spontaneous while he always erred on the side of caution. She found beauty and sense in the discoveries of Christian paraphernalia, while he would only scoff and express his need to toss the items in the trash. Two very different characters with contrasting personalities, yet they were married and were happy to be with each other. Throughout the entire story they are very stubborn in their decisions, but they worked together to come up with solutions, because of this they prove that two very different people can make a relationship work. Knowing someone who is different can be a good thing for a person overall, whether it is roommates, friends, or a relationship, there are lessons to be learned from the difference. Ideas from a person with a different background or opinion can teach tolerance and help people obtain a new sense of belonging. Being a different person is not bad, in fact, it can be quite good for society. If their is one person who does not agree, then it can keep everyone else grounded. Being grounded can help a person not get too full of themselves and become arrogant. Friends who are different signify that people are willing to take a chance on something that is different, that is unique. Being unique does not have to mean weird, it means that a person who follows what they believe. A person who is always clean and uptight can learn from a person who is messy and lazy, and the other way around, too. Having difference in the world makes the place more special and urges people to get out of their comfort zone and meet people who are different.

This Blessed House

Unlike many, I liked this story. Something about the new soul (Twinkle) trying to help the old one (Sanjeev) become accustomed to different cultures and learn to respect all. I found it interesting that no matter what Sanjeev said about the relics found, Twinkle would keep her acts up and not listen to him. If one were to compare it to the "Yellow Wallpaper" it shows a difference in the role that women possess in newer times. Women have more freedoms and have learned to stand up for themselves. The fact that all of these relics are placed on the center mantle for all to see is interesting. Sanjeev becomes worried about what people will think of him and their beliefs, however it turns out that all of his guests begin to love Twinkle and her stories. This shows readers that as a society we need to stop focusing on what people think and just do what we need to do or do what we think is best. Many fall into this category of becoming to egocentric and self-absorbed. We need to "just live life" and enjoy all of its wonderous happenings. It was interesting to see that Sanjeev did never have the courage to take down the relics that Twinkle had gathered. He never once threw them away, maybe he was afraid. This could be seen as a sign that he was afraid to move on and experience something new and unheard of in his eyes. Sanjeev maybe able to symbolize us as a society, caring too much about what people think, and Twinkle is seen as the one who just walks to her own beat of her own drum loving every minute of life.

The Mystery of the Hidden Treasures

It is clear that the Christian objects Twinkle finds in her new home play an important role in This Blessed House. I was constantly asking myself why so many treasures were left behind by the previous owners? It is obvious that they wanted the new occupants to know that they were Christian, but why? Did they know that Twinkle and Sanjeev were Hindu and hope to convert them to Christianity by leaving memorabilia?I can honestly say that I did not answer any of these questions . After reading the story, it became clear that Jhumpa Lahiri did not spend any time explaining why the objects were left behind. Those reasons were not important to the main point of the story.

Instead the relationship between the Christian artifacts and the strain they put on the young couple's relationship was a central theme. Although their marriage was not arranged we see first hand how different these two individuals are. Sanjeev is a quiet, traditional and uptight individual. In contrast, Twinkle is independent, easy going, and free spirited. With out love and respect for one another it is impossible to have a compatible relationship. Sanjeev himself states that "he did not know if he loved her...He said he did when she had first asked him...though she did not say if herself." I feel that it is because of this that Twinkle does not care about Sanjeev's feelings towards the Christian treasures and why Sanjeev can not understand and accept the personality traits of Twinkle. The story ends with Sanjeev's hate towards another one of the Christian treasures and Twinkles disregard to the feelings of her husband. One is left to wonder what would have happened if the story continued. Would their marriage hold strong or would their differences drive them apart? We'll never know.

Love 'Em, Hate 'Em...Sanjeev and Twinkle

I couldn't help but find myself constantly annoyed and frustrated by the two main characters in This Blessed House. Sometimes I hate a character so much that I want to keep reading just to find out what happens to him. But in this story, I was so bothered that I almost wanted to stop reading, and just not finish the story. I finished it anyway. Only to find myself hating the characters even more.
I'd have to say I'm more flustered by Sanjeev. From the very beginning he is a pretentious graduate of MIT. Ok, ok, he's a smart guy, I'll give him props for that. But does he have to be so anal. I hate that all he cares about is appearance. Honestly, give it up, live a little. Who cares what the neigbors think!? Obviously it doesn't even matter because his coworker noticed and was quite intrigued by the Mary statue in the yard. The Jesus painting Sanjeev was embarrassed by was awed at by the guests. Sanjeev is just a little too shallow for me. Honestly, he only got married so he wouldn't be lonely. Baaaaad choice! Sanjeev was the most annoying character I've ever met in a book and would definitley never be able to tolerate him in real life.
Now Twinkle, I'm just frustrated by her. On one hand I want to like her, because she is so care-free and independent. She just seems like a strong, confident woman. She doesn't care what others think, and it the story it ends up working in her favor! But on the other hand I can't stand her either. She is so lazy and absent minded. I can't blame Sanjeev for getting annoyed by her (but then he shouldn't have married her). I'm frustrated by Twinkle's character because I can't decide if I like her or not.

O, Othello, and the Question of Race

One element of Tim Blake Nelson's film, O, that we haven't discussed in depth is the decision to anchor the disconnect between Odin and the film's other characters in modern racial tensions. In other words, in Othello, the title character represents an appropriated "Other" (Othello rises to success as a Moor in Venetian society), yet nonetheless reminds audiences of Europe's anxieties over racial, religious, and geographic difference (though a Christian and a Venetian, Othello reminds Europeans of their North African Muslim neighbors to the South). Does something similar go on in the film? Is Odin both an appropriation and an anxiety? Are the worries about O as multidimensional in this American southern prep school as they are in 16th-century Venice? Or, is something else going on?

My Initial Reaction

Before we started watching the movie, I was under the impression that the plot of Shakespeare's Othello would not be quite as obvious in the movie. I thought that it would be harder to find the similarities between the two plots; like how The Lion King could be a modern twist on Shakespeare's Hamlet. The plot in The Lion King takes some careful analyzing to really see the connections to Hamlet. This could be because we say the movie long before any of us even knew that Shakespeare existed and therefore could not have possible picked up on the similarities. Or even upon reading Hamlet, we still didn't make the connection because we first saw The Lion King, we were probably pretty young. Our depiction of that movie will never change as we grow up and learn new things; it will always stick in our minds in the same way that we viewed it as young children. Maybe this logic could be applied to why the plot in "O" is so much like the play. Because we just got done reading Othello and I was expecting the movie to be a modern twist on that play, the plot stood out more clearly to me.

I believe that I had a hard time seeing the differences between the movie and the play because all I could focus on was the similarities. It wasn't until we started talking about the movie that I was able to feed off what everyone else was saying and realize the differences. For example, (besides the obvious differences) how my reaction to each character may have differed from the movie to the play. Like how Oden came off as much more jealous and more of a show-off in the movie where in the play I felt as if he were more humble and set back from the other characters. This is just one example of many that aroused in my thought process after listening to the discussion after the movie that could go on for much long, but I will stop here.

Adaptations- Good, Bad, or Ugly

While watching the movie "O" Monday in class, it occurred to me that modern adaptations of Shakespearean plays are really just translations of time old fads, traditions, and social conventions.This is particularly evident in the playing out of D and O's relationship, the "friendship" between Hugo and O, and the Dean's treatment of O as a black basketball player. Just sitting in the audience, one can have a different perspective than reading it off a piece of paper, or even hearing in on a cd. It seemed to me like watching it happen gave the play a certain vitality, realness.



Although, despite the reality of the movie, I was slightly disappointed in the portrayal of the play. Partially because I felt that the movie wasn't completely in line with the play, and partially because in certain parts I felt the acting was lack-luster. I suppose my disappointment in the portrayal comes from the adaptation part of the movie "O". While I think it's inventive and interesting to see the adaptation come into the 21st century, the only part of the entire movie (thus far) that has even a hint of the drama of Shakespeare is the opening scene.

Lack of Understanding leads to Adaptation

The other day in class we were left with the thought of themes in Othello in our own American culture. I think the real similariity between "Othello" and our culture today is the lack of understanding of outsiders such as Barabarino/Desi's father. Desdimona/Desi fell in love with someone who was different, a minority. This caused problems for her and society and between she and her father. Today, I believe these same problems occur when two peopleo of different races form a relationship of any kind. I think it is especially difficult for older generations to come to an understanding of how people with different backgrounds can have a relationship. We see this confusion in Desi's father in "O." He has a difficult time understanding his daughter, and I do not think that would be an uncommon reaction from, possibly our parents, but definitely from our grandparents. Today, it may be more common that individuals of different backgrounds form relationships, but the underlying root of the problem is the lack of understanding that society has for those who are different. Until people can understand that race, ethnicity, religion, and other cultural differences are truly not barriers to forming relationships, Othello will continue to be adapted to the social times.

Modern Adaptations.....Ever too much?

It seems as if the modern adaptation of Shakespearean plays into films has become a popular genre these days. With films such as Ten Things I Hate About You, Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet, and Michael Almereyda's Hamlet, Shakespeare's plays are constantly being updated with the latest slang and hippest clothes, all the while continuing to create buzz about Shakespeare. It's remarkable just to think how teenagers today can relate so easily to literary stories that were written hundreds of years ago.Yet, these films help to reawaken these ideas and show how they are still present in today's society. But do these adaptations ever go too far with the whole creative license concept?

I know when my high school engish class watched Michael Almereyda's Hamlet, many of my friends believed the director took the film too far in trying to be creative that he lost the whole Shakespearean feel to it. They felt as if it was just some knock-off trying to be creative all the while placing the name Shakespeare on it to get attention. Although it's certainly not one of my favorite movies, it does contain one of my favorite scenes in a movie. Ethan Hawke delievers the infamous "To be or not to be" speech all the while inside a Blockbuster store. I found the symbolism in these scene to not only be imaginative and creative, but just pure genius. I loved how he had Hamlet, this character who is trying to figure out his future and make the right decision, placed in a Blockbuster store where there are hundreds of possible decisions to be made. The whole point of a Blockbuster store is to choose what type of movie you want, what type of future you will have.

Many of my fellow classmates felt as if Michael Almereyda got out of control with this film, just trying to be as creative and different as possible, all the while, devaluing the original intent of Shakespeare's plays. So, do these modern-day film adaptations cheapen all that the original works had to offer? I feel like sometimes filmmakers just want to make this type of movie because of the Shakespearean name attached to it. This being said, I think many of them are the inventive works of people who truly care about and are interested in the parrallels that can be made between the Shakespearean themes and today's society.

Tim Blake Nelson's O does a great job at distinguishing these parallels, while still respecting the original literary piece. I also appreciate how the writer, Brad Kaaya was able to keep a lot of the original things, yet update them to fit into the 21st century. He's able to successfully transport Shakespeare's classic tale into American society by making these updates. One is how the actors don't speak in Skakpearean script. This allows the audience to relate more to the characters and events occuring. Kaaya also takes the liberty to make some alterations to the classic take of Othello. In the film, O is very cocky and full of himself. In Othello, however, Othello is very humble and it is his honorable background that wins the heart of Desdemona. O's background is very different and certainly not one filled with honor.

Shakespeare; Plays and Movies

Before this class I had never realized that there were so many modern day reenactments of Shakespeare's many plays. Possibly because some reenactments are so far removed from the actual play, it is hard for anyone to realize it is based off of one of Shakespeare's writings. One in specific that was mentioned in class was Ten Things I Hate About You. In fact, I was a little confused when someone made a quick little comment about it when we were saying how interesting it was that Julia Stiles had been cast in many of the modern Shakespeare movies. Not that I had any doubt in my class, but out of curiosity I looked it up on the internet. According to Wikipedia, Ten Things I Hate About You is based off of the play The Taming of the Shrew. It was really interesting to me to see the similiarities between that movie and that Shakespeare play.
It is obviously easier for me to see the similarities and differences between "O" and Othello because I've read that play. It is interesting to me that something which was originally set in the 1600s can be related to today. There have already been many instances in the movie which mirror the play. I'd say that right now, the biggest thing the movie has accomplished that is exactly like the play is Iago's character, Jugo in the movie. In both, this character is built up to be very sneaky. Both the play and the movie do a great job of making the reader/viewer hate this character. Now, I've never see "O" before, so I'm very interested in seeing how the ending of the movie compares to the ending of the play.

Emily/Emilia

When we were talking in class about the similarities and differences between the characters and settings, one that particularily stood out was the character "Emily." She is very similar to Emilia in the play. She is constantly by Desi's side, she's even her roommate. In the play she takes on a quite, but loyal role, much the same in the movie. However, when one takes a closer look, we can see that infact she is not as loyal as the picture is painted for us. In "O" she is Hugo's girlfriend, parallel to that of being Iago's in the play. Both in the play and in the movie, she is casted as if she was not as important as Desdemona/Desi. However, she is there to show her contrast with Desdemona. In act 4 scene 3, emilia states that she would be willing to commit adultry for a high price, where Desdemona would never do such a thing. I find it interesting that Desdemona gets blammed for adultry and she admits she would never even think about it, where Emilia, who is seen as the loyal one, openly states that she would be more than willing too. Emilia takes Desdemona's hankerchief and gives it to Iago, where he later places it in Cassio's house. I find it ironic that in both cases, the play and the movie, Emily/Emilia is seen as loyal and innocent, where in reality, she is the exact opposite.

The Art of the "Os"

Reading plays and watching films are two totally different worlds. There is a uniqueness to both kinds of art and I enjoy discovering them both. Plays allow you to be creative. Everything that takes place within the storyline is laid out on paper, giving you freedom to process all of the information, go back if you need to, and unfold the story when you wish. The best part about plays is that they inspire and encourage imagination. It becomes up to you to picture what the characters, scenery, costumes, dialogue, and action all look and sound like. In Othello so much action and encounter takes place between its characters, providing room for imagination. Sure, you can sense the general makeup of the plot when context is given, but it becomes up to you to make the scene come alive. Just like we did in class, it is up to us to decide what Act 5, scene 2 of Othello would have looked like had it come to life right then. Imagination becomes crucial when reading a play because you are the director! Film is another intriguing art to explore. Throughout the years film has come far in ways to produce something effective for the audience. Nowadays, filmmakers have many hi-tech tools to use to their advantage. Perhaps one of the most visible ways film has changed, especially from old interpretations to new interpretations of Othello, is through color. Color has brought an incredible amount of life to the screen. One advantage film has over a play or script is its ability to get you, the audience, in the action. I have liked watching O because it has done a great job of putting the audience right in the scene with the actors. For example, placing the camera on the floor of the basketball court with the players allowed us to have a front row seat in the action. It's also fun to explore how different directors portray life, historical or modern, and take on interesting interpretations of their scripts through film. Both forms of art allow for exploration and creativity and are ways to discover imagination and style.

Gallagher's "Perceptions of Equal Opportunity"

Charles Gallagher's "Perceptions of Equal Opportunity" was very informative. Something he spent a good amount of time talking about was the idea that, "marketers have it in their best interest to appeal to all races, their products." He then showed a series of advertisements that have appeared throughout newspapers, magazines, television -the media- where, for example, a Caucasian, African American, and a Mexican person stood together enjoying each other's company through a certain product. I guess I had never really noticed how racially diverse all our ads are! He explained to us that the main reason why they are so diverse is that, "people like to see themselves represented on TV." I think it is very smart for marketers to represent all of the people of this world in their advertisements because it allows every person to feel and realize that everyone is equal. Gallagher explained that the "frame constructed by marketers [is] to sell a product and an idea. So, not only do these ads encourage people to purchase their products, but also to realize that everyone has equal opportunity to achieve anything in this world. The truth! I learned a lot about the motivation behind every marketer's mind through attending Gallagher's presentation, and it has made me more aware of the media and advertisements that surround me and their influence on the people of our world.

The More Original It is, the Better

When a play like Othello becomes famous, there are always going to knockoffs and badly written spin offs. While the film "O" does have its flaws, the movie should not be thrown away as a piece of junk. A movie such as this was suppose to bring modern meaning to a play that had such meaning when it was originally written. It was suppose to connect the past to the present and bring a touch of classical literature learning into one. It could be argued that this movie is so different from the play that it is not related in any way. It could also be said that if a movie is just like the play come to life, it may lose its audiences. People like the original stories, but many people like to see movies and stories that give a new twist on an old classic. High school students find this new approach to Shakespeare very helpful for them to understand his plays. A movie such as "O" can help students understand the story in such a way that it would relate to them. If they can find an element of the story that makes them understand the purpose of the play a little more, is more than enough reason to make a movie. Just because its not exactly the same, does not mean its not its own piece of art that should be recognized. If writers, actors, and directors are able to bring a new life into an old story, then that is a great talent that should be shared. If a new edition of the story comes out it could help people see the original story in a different light. Many other media outlets have done projects like that and have succeeded, such as Wicked. A important thing to keep in mind when seeing a movie like "O" is whether or not Shakespeare may have intended for the story to be this way in modern times, when so much has changed. Plus, being too original when everyone knows what's going to happen and how it happens is not going to draw anyone in. It's the new way of going down the path to the end is what really draws people in, whether its reading or watching it.

Incase You're Interested...

Here is another link incase anyone wants to look at some other similarities and differences seen by the public between "O" and Othello.

http://www.dvdtown.com/reviews/o--othello/960

"O" no!

I want to continue the discussion we were having in class about Julia Stiles and her poor acting abilities in the movie "O." I love Julia as an actress but her performance in the movie "O" really disappointed me! As I thought about whether or not her character was meant to "not act" I began thinking that this was in fact probably scripted. I think Desdemona is supposed to be a "wishy washy" character and the director of "O" really wanted to emphasis this. In Othello Desdemona seems to "go with the flow." When Othello accuses her of sleeping with Cassio, she does not do much to defend herself and does as Othello pleases. She is very obedient to Othello and other characters around her. Even when Othello tells Desdemona to get to bed, she immediately obeys. Cassio asks her to plead with Othello on his side after the physical ordeal between Roderigo and himself and Desdemona again does as she is asked. I feel as if the director of "O" recognized this behavior as exemplified by Shakespeare in the play, Othello and felt it was necessary to have Julia Stiles portray Desdemona in this same perspective. Don't get me wrong, I loved Desdemona and truly felt pity and sympathy for her in the play, but her "wishy washy" behavior is something that is probably not relevant or noticeable to the reader because we are doing just that: reading. Seeing something acted out is completely different in comparison to solely reading a text. I feel the director wanted to portray Desdemona in a way most do not see her and as modernly as possible.

I am adding a link that I found interesting and one that compares and contrasts some major and minor topics in the movie "O" and the play, Othello. I especially liked the part concerning the differences between the real marriage of Othello and Desdemona in Othello and the pretend marriage of Oden and Desi in the movie. I hope everyone gets a chance to look it over!

http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1235266

A Level Playing Field?

Tonight at Charles Gallagher's discussion on race in the 21st century, Mr. Gallagher presented his idea of what racism in this century has come to. Today, as polls show, the age group of 25 is one that is "colorblind," in that it does not see race as a barrier. He presented his idea of what racism is today, in a culture that sees a "level playing field," where everyone has the opportunity to succeed. Gallagher has concluded that we are moving toward a type of racism that he calls "incidental racism." This type of racism is simply what the title implies: because of the way things are structured, discrimination or segregation just happen,they are incidental. Race is not the reason that segregation and discrimination occur, it is just incidental. People use factors other than race to explain differences in opportunities between whites and minorities. These differences include standardized test scores and prison statistics. For instance, there is a high number of African Americans compared to whites in prison for drug charges. The institutional racism explanation for this statistic would be that the government discriminates when pressing charges; however, incidental racism explains that police involvement in the city, where most African Americans live, is much greater than in the suburbs. The difference between the two schools of thought is the way in which racism is explained. This idea of incidental racism allows us to talk around the term "racism," as if to believe there is truly a level playing field, equal opportunity for all Americans, despite race, in the 21st century.
I want to believe in this rosy view of the world, that everyone has the same opportunities despite their background; however, it goes so much further than just the color of your skin. In this day in age, one needs the resources to succeed, and when one's family has been oppressed financially or socially, it is often very difficult to come out of those chains holding one back. Yes, we may see the first African American president, but to me that does not mean that racism is no longer an issue, that we, as a nation, are "color blind," and that the playing field is level. In order to truly give everyone equal opportunity, we need not just recognize race as a dividing factor, but we must look at how racism in the past has oppressed people and how we can bring those people out of oppression.

Plays on Truth

Othello has been widely considered a tragedy. A play in which the main characters die, or fall due to their tragic flaws (i.e.-Othello's tragic flaw is his faith/truthfulness). In contrast, I think this play you be called a play on Truth. Othello dies, yes because of his flaw, but mainly because Iago plays on truth. Desdemona dies, yes because of her naivete, but mainly because Iago plays on truth. Instead of saying, "oh these characters died because of their own faults" we should say, "these characters died because one among them knew not how to distinguish between truth and lies".


Even in Shakespeare's Macbeth, Macbeth and those around him die because of puns or plays on truth. If we then take a closer look at Iago and his devious ways, we can see that he is the root of every problem in the play. His devilish trickery and twisting of action and words causes the deaths of his wife, his captain and everyone around him. His jealousy led him to misconstrue truth and lies to the detriment of his fellow characters. We touched on this briefly in class, but we never quite delved into Iago's nastiness and fiendish tendencies. I think that his role transforms the entire play from one that could end happily, or even be a comedy to one that ends in death and tears.

Shakespeare's popularity

William Shakespeare is a famous name for the majority of people in today's society. People have read his plays in either high school or college, some even read them on their own time. He's stories are so popular that you can ask anyone around and they will have read him. What is it about his stories that make him such a popular subject in institutions of learning? Each person has their own reason why they think it is critical for an adult in modern times to read a play by an author, written hundreds of years ago. From teachers and other people, including my own opinion, his plays are vital because they deal with important issues that are still evident today. One example of that is love; Othello and Romeo & Juliet are prime examples of love that is not accepted. Issues of love are still prominent in life today, so it is helpful to read stories of problems that have always happened in life. Also, a reason why so many high school students read Shakespeare is that the way he writes, he keeps his readers interested. The actual writing might be hard to read, but he keeps the story constantly moving, even much needed dialogue is being given. He rarely has his characters sitting around, doing nothing. If they are doing something mundane, it is of importance to the story, such as where the main character is sitting or where the enemy is standing. Shakespeare never just tells a story, he tells many in a simple play that keeps the readers up and wondering what will happen next.

Mindmap for Paper 1

As I started thinking about Paper 1, I knew I wanted to write about "The Yellow Wallpaper," but I wasn't entirely sure how I wanted to organize it; I'm still not sure really. So, I figured that I could use my blog entry to get my ideas out and through doing this, I can find some sort of overlying theme. Help is always appreciated! :)

How does the setting of a literary text contribute to its meaning?
In the case of "The Yellow Wallpaper," the setting not only contributes to the meaning of the short story, but it almost is the story.

• If the setting (in this case, the yellow wallpapered room) wasn't in the story, the story would be lacking in plot...the story would instead just be about a depressed woman stuck in a house.
• In "The Yellow Wallpaper," the setting NEEDS to be there, because it creates a reason for the reader to care about the story.
• The wallpaper creates interest, mystery, suspense, and a reason for the narrator to be even writing the story.
  

How do characters/the narrator respond to place in telling ways?

The husband-John- just overlooks the wallpaper. He just views it as another symptom of his wife's depression.

• Almost gives us an insight into their relationship and the trust he has for her. It shows us he doesn't trust her "sane-ness" and just thinks the wallpaper is part of her disease.
• Never thinks she might be telling the truth, or rather, that the wallpaper is really something to discuss.
  

The narrator spends the entire story responding to the setting.

• "The Yellow Wallpaper" is literally an entire reaction to the setting.
• She goes from thinking it's dreadful and ugly and not writing about it that much to not only obsessively writing about it, but stating that "I'm getting really fond of the room in spite of the wallpaper. Perhaps because of the wallpaper."
• At the very end, she responds to the setting so strongly that she replies to John in a way that almost makes her sound like she's part of the setting. "I've got out at last, in spite of you and Jane? And I've pulled off most of the paper, so you can't put me back!"

In what ways is the "where" of the text more than a mere backdrop or coincidence?

In "The Yellow Wallpaper," the setting really does become a character in and of itself because of its influence over the narrator and how strongly she responds to it.

• It's not a coincidence that the yellow wallpaper exists - every story needs a hook, a reason to keep the reader interested. That's why the setting is in this particular story to such an extent it is.
  

So now that I've answered all the questions, I'm still not entirely sure how I can group this and really set a focus in order to find a thesis. I'm finding it difficult to find some overlapping themes...all i see is a bunch of answers to different questions. Maybe I can write something about how the yellow wallpaper is the central character in "The Yellow Wallpaper" instead of the narrator...

Characters

I found it interesting that Desdemona tries to prove to Othello that she is truly a virgin. She pleads with him, however, Othello doesn't budge. What I don't get is how Othello can ruthlessly just kill the woman he is sopposedly in love with. I know many get upset, but to just kill one's life without hearing her out. It says a lot about Othello. It really does show his darker side. The fact that he is involved with the army might add to it and how he is used to killing and seeing people get killed, but the fact that he can just kill his wife appalls me. Yes, he did cry in the movie, but Shakespear doesn't say if he did that in the play or not. That is just someone's take on the play. I really like Emilia. I think her loyalty to Desdemona is honorable. She layed there when Desdemona was dead on the bed. She faught with Iago on how he was a coward (much women of that time would have not faught with their husbands). I do find it interesting how there is a loyal character and an unloyal character in the play as well as two (one could consider Othello bad for killing his wife) villians. It's almost as if Shakespear is trying to convey a children's stories much like the Grimm brothers did (they wrote Cinderella, Snow Whie, Sleeping Beauty but in a much darker sense). One must see the villian, and the reader begins to hate the villian (as they should) much like how it is in the Grimm Brothers.

The Writing Process for Me

Step 1.
When I get ready to write a paper on a particular text, I start by going back over the text and highlighting any possible quotes that may help me develop my thesis. At this point I may or may not have a concrete thesis but I at least have a general idea of where I want my paper to go.

Step 2.
Then I write all of the quotes on a piece of paper in their entirety. If one quote is particularly long, I will just make a note to refer to the page number. Under each quote I write what the words make me think of or what they are saying in relation to the rest of the text. This process helps me develop a more concrete thesis or sharpen my thesis. I am able to see more clearly what is happening in my mind if I only look at small exerts from the text opposed to the text in its entirety.

Step 3.
The final step before I actually start writing my paper is it build a mind map. My favorite is the model with the bubbles but mine is a little different. I write my thesis at the top of the page, then think back to my quotes and around three main topics that all of the quotes would fit into. I write these main topics on the page in such a way that one proceeds the other. From there, I farther break down each main topic into smaller sub-topics that the quotes still fit under.

When I am actually writing my paper, I don't use all the quotes or the whole quote that I may have written down but I shorten them and add more analyze. This process is sometimes long and tedious but I find that it helps me collect my thoughts and allows me to see exactly where I want to go so I spend less time summarizing and more time analyzing. What do you do before you start writing? Does it lead to a paper filled with summary that drags on? Or does it produce a well organized and convincing analysis.

Black vs. White

After we watched the 1995 version of Othello in class, I immediately became aware of the impact color played in my own interpretation of the final scene. The words Black and white refer not just to race, but represent the moral nature of the characters in Othello. There are countless examples of white being a color that represents innocence and youth, a view that was supported in Desdemona's depiction in Act 4 Scene 3 as well as in the movie. In the play, Emilia states that she had "laid those sheets [she] bade [her] on the bed." These sheets in themselves represent Desdemona's virginity and the innocence she had yet to lose. In the movie, the color of her gown is stark white, the color that represents purity and truth.

If I had not read the play and watched the final scene of the movie, the color of Othello and Desdemona's garments would greatly effect my perceptions of who was "good" and who was "evil." In the 1995 version, Othello is shown walking to Desdemona's room covered in a white smock. When covered in this white garment, Othello was crying and mourning Desdemona's awaited fate. Underneath this overcoat, Othello was dressed in all black. As Othello states he's "going to put out the light" he removes his white garment. The character that appeared to be completely heartbroken over the "betrayal" of his wife was replaced by an outraged man whose sole purpose was to punish his wife for her unfaithfulness. It is when he is clothed in black, not white, that Othello kills the innocent Desdemona. This scene in itself represents the symbolism these two colors have on the audience. Black represents evil, trickery, and deceit and white is all that is honest, pure, and innocent.