In Kafka’s The Judgment, the elusive “friend” is a topic of much discussion. The “friend” is a more hazy and murky character, never really defined or given much of a back story. The reader does not know much except for the fact he is in Russia, is not successful in his business, and is sickly. The way Georg, the protagonist and narrator, refers to this friend is in a way that does not convince readers of amicableness. Georg seems to be rather pretentious in his manner towards the friend, as if he is better than him. The friend seems rather indifferent and even impersonal to Georg. Either way, for two people who are supposed to be close because they grew up together, they seem as if they are no longer friends. In the beginning, I believed that the friend was just a technique used by Kafka to encourage the reader to finish reading the story. As discussion continued in class, however, I realized that there was more to the “friend” that I had originally thought. A suggestion made in class was that the friend, juxtapositioned with Georg, was an image of Kafka’s life and the struggle between safe and secure and a life filled with passion for his chosen wanted career. This is evident when a reader makes the parallel between Georg, his relationship, his response to his relationship in regards to his “friend”, and Kafka’s life. Georg is engaged to a Frieda and it is implied that the relationship is one of convenience. Georg does not want to mention this relationship to hi friend in Russia for many reasons. Mainly, he doesn’t want to flaunt his relationship, and subsequently his great life, to a friend who has nothing. It is also implied that perhaps there was something going on between Frieda and this friend. In relation to Kafka’s life, in class it was mentioned that Kafka did not believe in marriage and that even though he had a fiancée at one point, he broke off the engagement because he could not bring himself to marry her. Perhaps the apprehension to tell this new to the friend is the same apprehension that Kafka had when he broke off his relationship with his fiancée. It is due to the obvious connections between Kafka’s life and Georg that I strongly believe that the sole purpose of the “friend” is an outlet to describe Kafka’s dream life.

The pictures on my assigned collage are:

1. A bed with a man and a woman pasted on top
2. A pregnant woman
3. Lamar Odom on a bed with the picture “Brothel” on top
4. A woman in a bikini
5. Lady Gaga Showing a picture of her leg
6. and three other pictures which I thought were pretty random if you consider the patter of the first 5.

There are three words that pop up into my mind.

The first is sex. I came to that conclusion from the picture of the man and the woman on the bed as well as the picture of the woman in the bikini.

The second is intimacy, or rather, “sex with the purpose of family” and this conclusion is drawn because of the picture of the woman who is lovingly rubbing her stomach.

Third is “risqué”. The work means “to shock by being sexually suggestive”. Magazines and the media in general have a tendency to over exaggerate natural things such as a leg but they also have a tendency to exaggerate actual risky things or serious things in general, like Lamar Odom’s health scare. The reason why I think his situation is “risqué”, however, is because he was spending time at a brothel… a place where men pay to be serviced by prostitutes…

As for the other three pictures… I don’t see how they would relate to any of the other categories…

Both realism and naturalism styles of writing were used to show the everyday life. Naturalism, however, was used to make more of a statement on more taboo subjects, as seen in “Hedda Gabler” by Ibsen.

The purpose of realism was to show readers what an everyday life was like. When thinking about “A Simple Heart” by Flaubert, readers are able to see what it was like living as a maid in the country side. You’re able to see a very candid vision of what life was like. Since a large portion of readers were the rich in the major cities, it was different for them to see what life was like for the other kind of person. As stated before, realism was a type of writing that didn’t have much of a motive behind topic. The best way to describe this is if readers compare “A Simple Heart” to “Candide” by Voltaire. His enlightened writing was obviously used to make a statement on people, how they needed to start thinking for themselves, and to make a comment on world leaders of the time. Realism really moves away from that.

I believe that naturalism is the even more so candid version realism. Naturalist writers like Henrik Ibsen did write about everyday life but, in the case of Ibsen and they play “Hedda Gabler”, naturalist were more open about more taboo subject. I noticed in Hedda Gabler, however, that instead of making certain subject painfully obvious, like Moliere would have in “Tartuffe”, that those certain subject were approached in a more subtle way. They were still addressed but they were more delicately placed and integrated into each story. This is unlike “Candide” where all subject were obvious and every chapter dealt with a new hypocrisy.

In both realism and naturalism, I feel like, while all characters had a back story, they were not “fleshed out” so deeply. By this I mean that literally anyone could n\be Felicite or Hedda Gabler. The characters were not described in specific detail, nor were their pasts so narrowly defined that someone could not “place themselves” in Felicite’s or Hedda’s shoes and become them. I believe that this is a great literary technique because it allows readers to relate and better understand each character better.

*Please note that everything that is in bold are my notes and thoughts! I do have a paragraph at the end that brings in some of my back ground on Poe so if some of my notes sound like they can’t be backed up, maybe they can make more sense after the last paragraph is read!

Eldorado

by Edgar Allan Poe

(published 1849)

GAILY bedight,

Bedight is defined as adorned.

A gallant knight,

In sunshine and in shadow,

Had journeyed long,

Singing a song,

In search of Eldorado.

But he grew old —

This knight so bold —

And o’er his heart a shadow

Fell as he found

No spot of ground

That looked like Eldorado.

The shadow that is spoken of here could elude to a darkness that came over the knight as many of Edgar Allen Poe’s characters have gone mad searching for something or keeping something hidden or at bay (as can be seen in the short stories “The Tell-Tale Heart” and “The Masque of the Read Death”).

And, as his strength

Failed him at length,

He met a pilgrim shadow —

“Shadow,” said he,

“Where can it be —

This land of Eldorado?”

So, here, I think the shadow is not a person that he can’t see, but a phantom of some sort, as Edgar Allen Poe always has phantom, ghosts, etc. in his works as well.

“Over the Mountains

Of the Moon,

(Impossible)

Down the Valley of the Shadow,

(I think this eludes to the Valley of the Shadow of Death)

Ride, boldly ride,”

The shade replied, —

“If you seek for Eldorado!”

(So, I think that this pretty much means that you have to be dead in order to find El Dorado which makes a lot of sense. El Dorado is always seen as a symbolism of Heaven (we saw that in Candide). It is also a place that can’t be found which makes sense as to why 1) the knight hasn’t found it in all his searching and why 2) no one knows where it is. Also, as you can see, the knight is already dying. This is why the Shadow is being really encouraging to “Ride, Boldly Ride”… I saw this as a way for the Shadow to say “don’t be afraid of death”.)

This is where I found the poem:

http://poestories.com/read/eldorado

——————————————————————————————————————–

Annabel Lee

BY EDGAR ALLAN POE

It was many and many a year ago,

In a kingdom by the sea,

That a maiden there lived whom you may know

By the name of Annabel Lee;

And this maiden she lived with no other thought

Than to love and be loved by me.

“Many and many a year ago” obviously implies that the woman is dead. This is not surprising because Edgar Allen Poe often writes about dead women, women dying, or women who are resurrected.

I was a child and she was a child,

In this kingdom by the sea,

But we loved with a love that was more than love—

I and my Annabel Lee—

With a love that the wingèd seraphs of Heaven

Coveted her and me.

…So the angels wanted the kind of love they had?…

And this was the reason that, long ago,

In this kingdom by the sea,

A wind blew out of a cloud, chilling

My beautiful Annabel Lee;

So she got sick and died… like his mom… and wife in real life…****

So that her highborn kinsmen came

And bore her away from me,

To shut her up in a sepulchre

In this kingdom by the sea.

A sepulcher (the word was misspelled… or was it written like that on purpose?…) is defined as: a small room or monument, cut in rock or built of stone, in which a dead person is laid or buried.

The angels, not half so happy in Heaven,

Went envying her and me—

Yes!—that was the reason (as all men know,

In this kingdom by the sea)

That the wind came out of the cloud by night,

Chilling and killing my Annabel Lee.

Okay, rude. So the angles “kill” her… or at least that’s what he’s blaming it on…

But our love it was stronger by far than the love

Of those who were older than we—

Of many far wiser than we—

And neither the angels in Heaven above

Nor the demons down under the sea

Can ever dissever my soul from the soul

Of the beautiful Annabel Lee;

For the moon never beams, without bringing me dreams

Of the beautiful Annabel Lee;

And the stars never rise, but I feel the bright eyes

Of the beautiful Annabel Lee;

And so, all the night-tide, I lie down by the side

Of my darling—my darling—my life and my bride,

In her sepulchre there by the sea—

In her tomb by the sounding sea.

I thought the dreams alluded to him seeing her ghost… which is totally possible if he’s sleeping next to her tomb every night… very concerning…

I got this poem on:

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/174151

****To bring some back story to Edgar Allen Poe, his life, and how it influenced his writing, he grew up without a father really present in his life. His mother was an actress and every night Edgar Allen Poe would watch his mom die. (She acted as Juliet in the play… Romeo and Juliet…). This was very traumatizing for him when he was younger but he eventually saw this so many times that he began to believe that every time his mother would die, she would come back to life. So, when his mother really did die (he was a big kid, not yet a teen, I don’t think) of tuberculosis, he was traumatized that she didn’t come back to life. To make matters worse, his wife (who was also closely related to him by the way) died of the same illness that took his mother. They both died very young (both in our standards and the standards of the 1800s.) The death of the two most important women in his life has greatly influenced his writing. He always writes about women dying or being dead and he writes about death in general. There were other things that influenced his writing of course (like the fact that he was an alcoholic, served in the military, and that he lived in the south for some time), but his mother and wife were instrumental to the writings that we know about today. Another is The Masque of the Read Death. This is a short story that personifies death and so many people who tried to be cautious were the ones to die. This is seen in the short story where they lock every important person in the castle grounds but death finds everyone any way.

1. Give a brief introduction to the text, situating it historically.

• This piece was written by Simon Bolivar who led the fight for independence of Latin America from Colonial Spain. He has left such a large impact that two countries are officially named after him: Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela and Estado Plurinacional del Bolivia. After losing a battle, Bolivar was sentenced to exile/prison in Jamaica where he wrote his original letter entitled “Letter From Jamaica”.

1. Who is the author(s)? What is their situation?

• The author here is, again, Simon Bolivar. Since he originally writes “Letter From Jamaica” and gets a response, he replies back with this piece entitled “Reply of a South American to a Gentleman of this Island [Jamaica]”. Here, the letter begins quite positive as he understands that his receiver understands the gravity of his situation, that Spanish presence in Latin America is unwanted and is causing danger as well as suffering.

1. Summarize in your own words the main argument of the piece you’ve chosen.

• Simon Bolivar is writing to gain empathy from the British. They are in desperate need of help and even writing to Britain can hold Spain accountable. In this letter, Simon Bolivar is trying to convince his reader that Spain is wrong in being tyrannical, that people in Latin America are in fact people and is time for them to be freed.
• Bolivar also tries to use Logos. On page 46 he questions Europe and their values and asks them if they can ignore what is going on in Latin America if it’s so wrong compared to what they hold true. On page 47 Bolivar asks if Europe can allow Spain to continue if they know that Spain is growing weaker and weaker from trying to expand more.

1. What is strong about it? What is weak?

• While I understand that Simon Bolivar needs to be writing to his audience, I feel like he was very wordy. I even though this piece is very short, it needed to get to the point faster.
• The reason that it is strong is the way it was written, to whom it was written, and the fact that it was written by Simon Bolivar himself. He is a man who gained a lot of credibility and that made him a reliable source. Since his original letter was published in Great Britain, I think it was smart that it was written to an Englishman in Jamaica because now he has the support of one of Spain’s enemies. On the topic of wordiness, it was very eloquently written, and that’s why I stated before that I understand that Simon Bolivar had to write the way he did to reach his intended audience.

1. Do you think it is successful in conveying its message?

• I think it is. The whole letter is explaining what is happening in each section of Latin America. In New Spain, in New Grenada, in the Viceroyalty of Peru, and other areas. It’s kind of like the Declaration of Independence where almost every offence is listed. The only difference here, is that the offences are explained a little bit more seeing as there is a more physical presence and thus more physical offences.

1. Looking back from 2015, do you think progress has been made?

• In the topic of Spain in general, I learned in my IDC 4050H class that there was a summit and all Latin American Countries were in attendance as well as the Kingdom of Spain. While Spain has no, and I mean NO, say in what each Latin American country does, (disregarding the islands in the Caribbean that they have as well as the Canary’s in the Atlantic) Spain still tries… My teacher told our class that the King of Spain was trying to “control” the speakers of the summit and they weren’t responding, especially Castro who kindly told him to be quiet.
• As far as Latin America as a whole… Even after Spain left, there has been a long, Long, LONG history of military occupations, invasions, and dictators in all of Latin America’s countries. It’s really sad and people today are still not happy with the governments and the leaders they have, but many of the countries are doing really well.
• Lastly, when the letter briefly brought up Puerto Rico and Cuba, I could not help but think about the indigenous people that they completely eradicated… it’s sad that Puerto Ricans today can’t every know what life was like back then. In Panama, for example, where we still have our indigenous people, we can still learn from them and gain insight to how things were in the past. For Puerto Rico, this will never be the case…