Throughout the story “The Judgement” by Franz Kafka, the role of the friend in St. Petersburg is extremely confusing and there are numerous explanations as to what his role is. I do not think there is any clear cut answer or “right” answer as to what role the friend plays in this story.

The imaginary and mysterious friend is described as ” a big child with a fully exotic beard poorly concealing the face.” Yes, these words give the reader a decent image of what the friends face looks like but that is about it. I am not sure why Kafka states the status of the friends facial hair before mentioning characteristics of his personality. This bothered me a great deal.

I struggled to come up with any similarities between George and his friend. A major difference that I noticed was the “successfulness”  of George compared to the failure of his friend. Kafka uses the word “fled”, implying the friend ran away from something. Kafka could have very easily used the word “moved”, instead he used “fled”. I learnt from this that the friend was clearly having some struggles and not having a great life where he was so he was escaping something and fled to St. Petersburg.

” His friend was settling in as a bachelor for good.” Why did this friend have no interest in getting married? Perhaps, it has something to do with his lack of interest in community and being social as a whole. Kafka mentions the friend did not have close ties to the colony. I think this friend was an anti-social human being and this is one of the many reasons that he fled to Russia.

This nameless friend causes a lot of complexion and confusion to George’s life. George discusses in great detail whether or not he should tell his friend that he plans on getting married. It is unclear to me whether or not I would consider George and this friend close friends. It seems as if they have some everlasting connection and clearly George has an interest in keeping in touch with him, but I feel as if George always has to think before telling him something and this is not healthy. More importantly, this nameless friend damages/ruins George’s relationship with his father. As we all know, in the end George commits suicide. Although I can not definitively say George would not have committed suicide had his father not spoken with the friend, I strongly believe George would not have killed himself. I am wondering as to why George’s father cared about this friend so much? What are the positive characteristics that George’s dad saw inside this friend?

Overall, this friend caused a lot of unnecessary complexity to George’s life and eventually caused his suicide.

Some of the images in my collage were ( in no particular order):

1. stacks of coins (particularly pennies)
2. an upside down American flag in the forest
3. Barbie dolls
4. a doctor with a stethoscope
5. a pie chart
6. dollar sign
7. pistols
8. a tribute to an american soldier
9. people on the beach

I looked at this collage last night and I thought for awhile as to what this compilation/collage is representing. After a significant amount of time my mind was still blank and I decided to sleep on it. When i revisited the image of the collage on my iPhone today something came to my mind that made sense. This collage is representing the sections that you would see in a newspaper. For example, whenever a U.S. soldier gets killed in action there is always a tribute to them in the paper. This is perhaps the front cover. The dollar signs and the stacks of pennies represent the econonic/financial section of the newspaper. The people on the beach can most probably be found in the culture section. Perhaps the pistols are meant for the crime blotter area of the newspaper? I know that the NY Post has a page every single day that recaps the crimes in NYC of the day before. I am still confused as to what the upside down American flag represents. I am looking forward to hearing from the group members as to why each image is placed where it is on the paper. The beauty of a college is the mystery and questions that the viewer has to deal with. Overall, I enjoyed this activity and hope we can do more like this one.

“Seperate Ways” by Higuchi Ichiyo is a tale of abandonment. Kichizo was adopted by the factory owner and worked as an apprentice in an umbrella factory. His only friend is an older woman in her twenties named “Okyo.” Kichizo is heartbroken and distraught when Okyo tells him that she is leaving the factory and moving. Okyo is leaving to become a mistress/concubine. Kichizo attempts to dissuade her but to no avail Okyo leaves the factory.

Kichizo truly represents realism. He was dealt a Jack and then a 4 in a game of blackjack while the dealer was dealt an Ace and a Jack (he lost the hand). He decided ” I will not give up”, and made himself a life out of nothing. The beauty of Realism writing is that is shows how regular and ordinary lives are very important and interesting. Higuchi Ichiyo does a great job at showing the heavy amounts of drama that are in the protagonists life.

Realism attempts to represent things as they are. This movement began with Stendal in the mid 19th century and is still used today. Naturalism was a literary tendency used in the late 19th century until the early 20th century that used detailed realism to show that the environment and other natural forces shaped the lives of humans and how we act. Charles Darwin had the greatest influence on Naturalist writers. Realism writers depicted the characters as who they are solely based on their actions. Naturalism writers depicted the characters as who they are based on their actions and based on their natural surroundings. This is the key difference between to the two ideas. Both naturalism and realism began as pessimistic writing styles, because the time period that both of these ideas were formed was one of turmoil and bloodshed. I also noticed that God or religion is lacking in both of these beliefs. Just something I wanted to put out there. Anyone have any thoughts on why this may be true? Anyways, here is a quote I found pertaining to realism and I found it quite interesting. John C Maxwell the renowned American author once said, ” A lack of realism in the vision today, costs credibility tomorrow.”

Sources:

1) https://magicalmysticalteacher.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/separate-ways/

2) http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/realism.html

3) http://sansguilt.hubpages.com/hub/Compare-and-Contrast-The-Similarities-and-Differences-between-Realism-and-Naturalism

Christina Rossetti was a Romantic poet who lived in the 19th century in England. It is interesting to note that her pen name is Ellen Alleyne. I tried looking as to why she chose the name Ellen but I could not find a sufficient answer. If anyone has any thoughts please let me know. I can almost write an entire blog post on why people change their names and whether or not I agree with it. Christina was a devout Anglican and wrote a lot of religious poetry. Her most famous work was the “Goblin Market”, written in 1862. Christina passed away at the young age of 64 due to Graves Disease.

The first two lines of the poem are:

” The curtains were half drawn, the floor was swept

And strewn with rushes, rosemary and may.”

I loved this introduction! I think it is very important that the writer informs the reader the setting. After reading these first two lines I was able to paint an image in my mind. I imagined a dimly lit room with the sunlight being the only source of light in the room. The bed was covered with red and white flowers that one would see at a funeral parlor or cemetery.

” Where thro’ the lattice ivy-shadow crept.”  The word lattice comes from the Latin word lades. It is a structure made up of wood and metal fastened together with a diamond shaped pieces on the top. To me this sounds very similar to a wooden casket with some decoration on top. After a casket is in the ground for a few years ivy and grass begin to grow on the casket. Perhaps, the author is alluding to a casket? The next three lines in the poem are:

” He leaned above me, thinking that I slept

And could not hear him; but I heard him say: 

Poor child, poor child…”

These three lines solidify my thoughts that the protagonist is in fact in a casket on his bed. When one is sleeping, people do not usually talk to the one in bed unless it is an urgent matter and they wake them up. On the contrary, it is very common for people to speak to a relative or a friend when they are in the hospital and near death even if they are not getting a response. It is very natural to unleash emotion and speak to a loved one. Personally, when my grandfather was very ill and no longer responsive I still spoke to him in bed even though he could not respond and most probably did not hear me. Although he was not responding it was still very therapeutic for me to talk to him.

“He did not touch the shroud, or raise the fold

That hid my face, or take my hand in his.”

I am not quite sure as to why the author is trying to convey with these lines. It seems to me as if Christina is expressing the lack of care by the man who is visiting his loved one. I do not feel that one needs to touch or kiss the dead in order to show true love or compassion. Everyone connects to the dead in his or her own way, and some feel uncomfortable touching a dead body.

“He did not love me living; but once dead

He pitied me; and very sweet it is.”

These two lines confused me and caused me to reread the poem a few times. If he did not love her living, why did he visit after she was dead? I know it is respect to the dead, but was this a visit of pity or love? Anyhow, it is still kind that he visited. The poem ends with the words: ” And very sweet it is to know he still is warm tho I am cold.” I think the protagonist is using sarcasm and is not genuinely happy that he is still warm. I do not know how much she really appreciated the man’s visit. The famous words ” Too little too late”, are a perfect way to describe the theme of this poem. The life lesson that I learned from this poem is take advantage of the “now” moment in life and do not wait until it is too late.

Marie Gouze more famously known as Olympe de Gouges was a political activist and her feministic views had a major affect on the world. She lived in the France in the 18th century, and life was far from simple in that time period. She was born in the South of France into a low class family, this meant she did not have an easy childhood. Pre the French Revolution (1789) there was much social inequality in France and there were only two social classes; upper and lower. As you can imagine, women had minimal to no rights, whether they were a member of nobility or simply a peasant.

Political tension was rising in France due to the poor leadership of Louis XVI. Poor leadership in addition to the Enlightenment views of the masses ( which were anti a king ruling over the masses and having complete power) were two main causes of the French Revolution. Olympe decided to get married at the young age of 18 to a man she says ” I did not love”. Her husband passed away one year into the marriage and she moved to Paris. In Paris she found a wealthy man and they lived together. This man Jacques had many colleagues who were writers and politicians and Olympe used this to her advantage. Olympe was extremely frustrated about the lack of equality and chose to do something about it. In 1791 Olympe joined the “Social Club” which was a group of leading feminists in France who met weekly to try to improve women’s rights.  Amidst the French Revolution in 1791 she published her famous work ” The Declaration of the Rights of Woman”. Unfortunately, she was arrested in 1793 and eventually put to death via the guillotine.This was essentially a response to to the ” Declaration of the Rights of Man” which was published a year before. Olympe takes the 17 articles of the ” Declaration of the Rights of Man” and makes the text applicable for women. For example, the first original article was 1. ” Men are born and remain free and equal in rights”. Olympe’s first article states ” WOMEN is born free and remains equal to man in rights.” She changed other articles but it notably known for making the version “woman friendly”. The argument in the publication is hopefully clear to you after you have read this post. Women deserve the same rights as men. Obviously, this is a strong argument as half of the world is female and there is no reason as to why they should not have the same rights and ability to act as they choose just like men. I thought the preamble was the strongest and most powerful portion of this piece. It begins with “Mothers, daughters, sisters, representatives of the nation, demand to be constituted into national assembly…”  The word demand drew my attention while reading this, and I went back and read that sentence a few more times before moving on. The word demand shows that Olympe was not saying women should or want rights, she purposely used the word demand to show we will get those rights it is not up for discussion. After reading this preamble I was struck with awe. Honestly, I  can not find any flaws in her argument. The only weak part of her story is that her life was taken from her. She did an excellent job, as it is clear to the reader what she wants. Her argument is supported with detailed examples as to why she is correct and If I was living in France in the 18th century I would surely side with her.

Has progress been made is a very vague question. Of course, there has been positive movement towards women’s rights in the United States and through out the entire world. France has members of the government who are female as does the United States. Olympe de Gouges probably could not have dreamed or imagined that French women could have the rights that they currently have in 2015. Officially, there is no gender discrimination in either country but if you look at the statistics there still is. For example, more women graduate college per year than men, so why do women who are employed in the same field as men only earn 77 cents per dollar that a male earns? Why??? The truth is to be told. Hopefully, our children will not have the same question to ask.