When reading Ibsen’s text of Hedda Gabler, the story seems to move rather smoothly. I get a clear picture of the characters and an understanding of what I think I’m supposed to be understanding. However, if not for reading the text first, I don’t think I would’ve been able to follow the film. Granted, one watching should understand the context but it just did not seem to jump out at me like the text. The text provides us with a relatively full picture of Hedda which I could just not find in the film. Hedda clearly has high standards, but the film lacks to point out how much of a factor Hedda is to Tesman. Tesman would go to great lengths to please Hedda, which we do see in the film; Hedda’s displeasure and what Tesman has done or is doing in an attempt to curb that displeasure. What is clear from the outset is Hedda’s ability to manipulate Tesman and even Aunt Julle.

What is also evident throughout the film is the more colloquial language being used. I’m not sure of the reasoning for that, but the language of Ibsen’s text reads more freely and allows the reader to concentrate on the story more so than interpreting the possible meaning of the text. Perhaps it was trying to emphasize the high class of the setting and to really paint a picture around Hedda. The free language of the text also frees up the ability for the reader to establish the relationships between the characters, while the more difficult conversation in the film either allows them more time to develop the characters before a relationship becomes clear or completely draws out the relationship for you.

I believe both forms serve their own purpose in the end. The text is meant to be up for interpretation so it can be altered and developed into what we see in this film. Films, on the other hand, are that writer’s or director’s personal adaptation of the selected text; something that will always be up for discussion in the world of films.

1) Harriet Jacobs, with herself as a prime example, makes it clear to me the lengths some slaves were willing to go to in order to avoid the egregious ownership and back breaking work that comes with it. She made it clear multiple times in “The Loophole of Retreat” excerpt. Assuming the worst of cases, in which a runaway or slave in hiding was caught? One cannot even begin to imagine what sort of punishment they may face. However, those slaves knew the consequences, but still took the risk knowing that any ounce of freedom is almost always likely to be better than what they go through every day as a slave. Jacobs’ message differs from Douglass’ ever so slightly. They both paint a clear picture of their time as slaves, but Jacobs describes how the owners would taint the mind of slaves. Slavery definitely took a psychological toll on Douglass, but many of his troubles came from slavery and its physicality. Jacobs told how her owners deliberately made several efforts to damage the minds of all of their slaves. That they know their place in society and that they know what it is like in the outside world. The result would be completely broken slaves; they know what they’re missing, yet they know how unachievable it may be. Tired, depressed, and continuously dragged lower, work becomes all they know and all they will ever do.

2) Although slavery has been illegal for some time now, it is important that the social definition is understood aside from the dictionary definition. A slave is not just one who is owned by a master, a person who’s superior has complete control over him or her, regardless of pay (as little as that may be), can still be considered a slave.

The most shocking stat may be that it is estimated that at least 21 million people are considered enslaved, today.

As many slaves in the world are undocumented, immigrants or not, it is very easy for them to remain in forced bondage. Whether paying back an insurmountable loan with work, or being forced into labor by threat these people have no recourse with the law and nowhere to turn. So, they remain as slaves until this day.

“Slavery proved as injurious to her as it did to me. When I went there, she was a pious, warm, and tender-hearted woman… Slavery soon proved its ability to divest her of these heavenly qualities. Under its influence, the tender heart became stone, and the lamblike disposition gave way to one of tiger-like fierceness.”

This passage clearly illustrates for me the emotional and psychological impact slavery had on even the most tender people. Almost everyone understands the physical hardships and the toll slavery took on the body; but it takes one who experienced and witnessed for themselves what it might do to one’s mentality. Anyone who is forced into a life of slavery from the start knows nothing else. One who knows of real life must have an exponentially more difficult time. As a slave you must work to live, there is know compassion, there is no tenderness when slavery is the limiting factor.

Douglass really paints a picture of that for the reader. The eloquent language mixed with the dark messages that language is sending made it stand out for me. What I ask though, was it possible to go through all they have gone through and still remain the person you are really supposed to be? If not, then how could an emancipated slave live a normal life in the world after? I believe what may seem as a change of heart as a slave, was just the brain forcing itself to adjust to the surroundings in order to better suit the conditions, as horrible as they may be. In the end, most should be able to return to their state of mind as a normal, compassionate person. The means may not have been standard, but if you manage to escape the end should always be the same; a human being.

Having read the story of Oedipus in high school, I came into the staged reading with a pretty clear picture of the play. I was not sure the abridged version I was seeing would be able to get the full story in, but they seemed to get the bulk of it in within the 65 minute playing time. It started out quite slow with the actors not doing such a great job with their scripts in hand, but I gave them the benefit of the doubt at first because it was a staged reading. However, as the play moved I slowly became more and more engrossed in the story, completely forgetting about the scripts in their hand and barely realizing that a few of the same actors played multiple characters.  I did like the contemporary language the script was written in; it made the story much easier to follow and allowed me to fully understand everything that was going on. When I read it in high school, I was reading a more archaic version of the text which may have led to me not noticing a few of the details of the play. This more modern version, even though abridged, allowed me to pay attention to the details; and having the actors read out the script made so I was actually seeing what I had read. In my opinion the end of the story could have been played out more dramatically; it went by far too quickly, not allowing the audience to really put together all the pieces and really understand what was unfolding. Overall, it was acted out quite well by all involved. Yet, for some reason I wasn’t impressed with the gentleman who played Oedipus, relative to the rest of the cast. All the other actors really convinced me they were several different people and convinced me what I was watching was almost really happening. Oedipus just did not click for me, I feel he may have overplayed the character which made it difficult to listen to and at times upset me. It also may have been because he was the only one to play only one character (also being the main character) and that allowed me to really watch his every move and may have led to a little overanalyzing on my part.

The ukiyo-e genre of painting was vastly popular in Japan during the times of Akinari. The common subject of the paintings was the beauty and seduction of Japanese women at the time. I find this to be similar to Bewitched when it comes to the ways of Manago. Her ability to use kind and polite words to win over men is similar to the themes of the ukiyo-e genre and this specific painting. In this painting we may not know the words of these women, but what we do know is that they use kindness, seduction, and entertainment to win over men. In the ukiyo-e genre, men are rarely involved in the paintings. When they are involved they are almost always falling for the beautiful woman or women in the painting. When a women uses the language, “I shall dry my clothes with the warmth of your kindness” it is almost always enough to lead you to a man’s heart. The two do not directly correspond, but the parallel is unmistakable to me. Words of kindness and seduction to win over a man in Akinari’s writing; and the beautiful, seductive nature of the women and their entertainment in Japanese ukiyo-e paintings to gain access to the man’s heart. If you are looking at it from the woman’s perspective, I believe these variable means to a similar end may have been a motif of Japanese culture at the time.

Orgon’s appreciation and love for Tartuffe is established early and often. Why, becomes an essential question as the play moves forward. Orgon believes Tartuffe is the complete embodiment of the perfect man and goes as far as breaking an organized wedding to replace his daugter’s groom with Tartuffe.  Mariane asks Orgon, “Who is this perfect man in every way, whom in body and soul I find divine and ask of you, ‘Please, Father, make him mine?” He responds with, “Tartuffe.” At that point one begins to think why is Orgon so fond of Tartuffe? Maybe he looks up to him for his devout religiousness, or maybe he is, in fact, in love with Tartuffe. Throughout the first two acts, Tartuffe is illustrated as a hypocritical, foolish imposter. He has already fooled the likes of Orgon and Madame Pernelle. This relationship between Orgon and Tartuffe seems to be based off of a religious fabrication Tartuffe pushes onto many, and often succeeds. The relationship between the two is just a delusion of Orgon’s. Over and over again we see others work to convince Orgon, and in part Mariane, of Tartuffe’s misleading ways. Dorine even concludes about Mariane, “I see the truth: You really want to be Madame Tartuffe.” I can think of various ways this can connect to contemporary life. When someone falls in love they are sometimes blinded by the lust to see what really lies beneath in their partner. As well as a politician that will do or say anything in order to be elected, the citizens are so focused on promises, charades, and smoke screens that they completely ignore corruption, or so much so that they do not even know the corruption exists.

Hi, my name is Elliot Zakay. I’m a sophomore marketing major here at Baruch. I consider myself a Syrian-American Jew, part of one of the largest jewish communities in the world located in Brooklyn, NY.

I would say the news makes up for a large part of my reading, but aside from that I read any novel that happens to catch my eye. By far, the best book I read was Lois Lowry’s The Giver. I still resonates in my mind, even though I read it almost 7 years ago. It is sometimes referred to as a children’s book, but it will always be my favorite book. I think the fact that I can’t see myself forgetting it makes it so hard to pick anything else.

I happen to speak Hebrew at home, along with English, as well as do a little reading; gain, most of that reading is of the news. I speak Hebrew at home not because of my jewish heritage, but because my father was born in Israel and we remain connected to the country to this day, despite living half way around the globe. Hebrew is seen to many as a very difficult language to read and write, with a completely different alphabet and being that it is written in the opposite direction. From my experience I see it as a very simple, free-flowing language, even more so than english (even though it’s technically my second language).

I hope this gave a nice little picture of myself and my reading preferences. I would like to end by saying that, above all, the easiest way to learn or practice any language is through the news. Relevant information and relevant practice.

Elliot.