Being in a joint family house and living with people who are exactly the opposite of you can be quite annoying, but sacrificing yourself for peace in a household is a very courageuos thing to do. Chandara faced a cruel punishment to the eyes of the world but within her family she was respected a lot for what she had done. Taking the blame for killing the “borabau” of the house was a situation no one was going to take upon themselves, but when both her husband and brother-in-law realized their mistakes, they had a guilt which did not have a value for at the end of the story.

                 When the “chotabau” of her house said “to hell with him” , referring to her husband, she had no value of his guilt because he was a coward to not even save her in the first place and take the blame on him. Chandim was described as very neat and effortless in grace for doing something but instead of saving his wife who was innocent and perfect for him in everyway, he saved his brother who was completely opposite of him and was guilt for the murder.

               The setting of this story is village where there is usually farmers and uneducated people. It is really rare that a person like Chandara would be able to survive being honest to her family or the people in her area. Uneducated people might symbolize innorance or uncivilized people. In this case the head of the household would rather save his brother then his own family that could have started.

This is an image I found on google that I thought would relate to the punishment scene of Chandara.

Loevberg = Bacchus

Within the play Hedda keeps questioning whether Eilert Loevberg has “vine-leaves in his hair.” In a quest to understand Hedda’s implications I researched into what “vine-leaves in his hair” could symbolize. Upon doing so, I have gathered the following information.

Bacchus is the greek god of wine and fertility. He can be characterized as the following:

1. Being nice and gentle to those who honored him

2. Bringing destrcution to those who “spurned him or the orgiastic rituals of his cult.”

3. Associated with orgies and unrestrained behavior.

According to one myth, Bacchus dies  in the winter and is reborn in the spring.

Every time Hedda makes the statement “vine-leaves in his hair,” she is making a connection between Loevberg and Bacchus. Similar to the Greek God of Wine, he is a drinker and conducts in sexual activity regardless of the society’s norms. This is quite apparent when both Tesman and Brack tell the accounts of the party to Hedda: Tesman refers to it as an “orgy” and Brack decribing it as a “free-for-all in which both sexes participated.”

Hedda is attracted to Eilert’s traits of freedom, rebelliousness, and excessive drinking. This sense of freedom and courage he that he possesses is what Hedda wants for herself. However, she is unable to attain that for she is afraid of “scandals.” Being that she is of a high aristocratic social class and a woman, it is unacceptable for her to conduct in such behavior. However, she indirectly partakes in such behavior when she is able to get out information from Eilert about his personal sexual history. When Eilert commits suicide and dies (connection to when Bacchus dies in winter) it is an end to freedom and courage. But, he is rebon when Tesman and Mrs. Elvstead try to piece together the “lost manuscript” of Eilert.

Research From:

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/cs6/dionysus.html

Ingrid Bergman as HEDDA GABLER

I feel that when it comes to a play, in order to understand the characteristics of the various characters, it is easier when watching them. For me when I am able to visualize the characters movement and hear the tone in their speech, I am able to get a better understanding of the play. However, when I read the manuscript of the play I get confused whose conversing and what is happening. I find myself re-reading the dialogue to make a note of what has happened.

In order to better understand Hedda Gabler, the aristocratic wife of George Tesman, I youtube the play and was able to find videos: Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler (1963-TV Ingrid Bergman). Upon watching ACT I and II in action, Hedda came across as a cold hearted being. She is rude, materialistic, jealous, a big liar, manipulative and flirtatious woman.

A. Rude: She breaks the heart of dear Auntie Juju who is a sweet old lady. Aunti Juju bought a new hat to please Hedda, but Hedda was disrespectful about it referring to the hat belonging to the maid.

B. Materialistic: When George  breaks the news to Hedda that they have to watch their spending, she gets upset. She becomes hysterical for not being able to throw parties at the house and entertain guests and also for not getting a horse.

C. Jealous: Knowing that Mrs. Elvstead has a liking towards Eilert, when she comes over to visit when Eilert is also there she tries to sit next to Eilert. However, Hedda tells Elvstead to let her sit between her and Eilert. Hedda becomes a division between Eilert and Elvstead trying to stop them from coming together.

D. Liar: Hedda lied to Judge about intentionally making fun of Aunt Juju’s hat in order to tease her. She also lied about living in the house that she is in because she had only brought up the house for a topic of discussing with George when they were returning from a party and George had nothing to talk about.

E. Manipulative: Hedda gets Eilert to drink even knowing that he has worked hard in giving up his temptations.

F. Flirtatious: When Judge comes to pick up George for the bachelor party, Hedda starts chatting with him. And through their dialogue, her body language is that of a flirtatious woman (as shown in the video).

To like, or not to like… that is the question. If you like the drama, suspense and a lot of confusion then you have come to the right play. Hedda Gabler is a spoiled aristocratic wife of George Tesman. While they are newly weds they don’t seem to have the normal happy marriage that you would assume. They live in a beautiful home which Tesman’s Aunt helped to finance. While that would please most people, Hedda scorns it and it becomes apparent later on in the play that she doesn’t even care for the home in which she resides in. Hedda is the protagonist of the play and we learn much about her in the first two acts. I personally think she’s like one of those serial killers that nobody knows about. Not only is she spoiled, she is manipulative and cold hearted. She cares for nobody but herself and she will stop at nothing to get her way. One thing which I don’t understand yet is her apparent love for pistols. (Possible foreshadowing of craziness to come?)

I personally find this play hard to understand. I don’t get its purpose so far. We learn very little about the setting or background of the play. So far the entire play has taken place in the living room of Tesman and Hedda. We are introduced to a few characters but nothing has really happened yet to catch the attention of the reader. It is like a soap opera on tv, the tv show goes on forever and yet nothing ever really happens. One week on a soap opera can literally be just the actors and actresses depicting one day. That’s what this play feels like, a never ending day of the rich and spoiled.

In my attempt to understand the play better I did some research and came upon these videos of the play. After watching this I find the play alot more interesting.  I suggest you watch them, it is quite interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKgcjssJgvY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Vk9QKZwAG8&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoBohz9APKg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkgTGRs8tmw&feature=related

Even though i haven’t finish reading the play, i thought the play was quite interesting and fun to read. I really like Ibsen as a playwright since i already read one of his other play A Doll’s House. Hedda Gabler is centered around this couple who just came back from a six months honeymoon and ready to settle down to their new house. Hedda Gabler, the heroine of the play is a rich beautiful woman who is married to George Tesman, a researcher whom is about to publish a book. Hedda is your typical female villain in a movie, she is spoiled, mean and very manipulative of people around her. She reminds me a lot of Angelina from Jersey Shore since they both don’t care about people that lives with them and has no respect for any them.  When i first started reading i really despise her especially when she was treating Aunt Juju like garbage even after she treated her so nicely and gave up her lifesaving just  to help buy the house that she lied about liking. George Tesman on the other hand is your lucky guy who married one of the most prized girl  in town and no one knows how he did it. He is trying to make Hedda as happy as she could so she wouldn’t leave him even though she is bored to death about him. I thought George is a lot like Candide or Jose from Jersey Shore, both are clueless and ended up with beautiful women (Not Jose).

At first, i thought the play resembles the movie “Mean Girl” but then i kept on thinking and compared it to Jersey Shore. Since some people in our class watches Jersey Shore, i thought i would be fun to give the casts of Jersey Shore each a character to play. Sorry for those who don’t watch so i wrote description for each character.

Hedda Gabler- A:Sammi/B:Angelina

A: Both are spoiled and never do anything in the house.

B: Angelina is mean and manipulative just like Hedda. Has no respect for other and other care about herself.

George Tesma- A:Ronnie/B:Jose

A: Ronnie would be a good fit because he is love interest of Sammi and has to deal with her all the time.

B: Jose also would be a good fit for being so clueless and getting  “played like a piano”

Eilert Loevborg- Mike “The Situation”

He’s Hedda’s first love in the play so i thought “The Situation” could play it since Sammi was with him during the first season.

Mrs. Elvsted- Jenny

She gets bullied by Hedda and had her hair pulled by her so i thought of the fight scene between Jenny and Sammi where Jenny got her hair pulled by Sammi.

Aunt Juju- Snooki

She cares about the couple but instead get treated horribly by Hedda. Very much like Snooki where she tried to help Sammi but instead she got blamed for trying to start drama.

Judge Black- Pauly

Nothing similar other than that They’re friends with Eliert/”The Situation”

Extra- Vinny

No character for Vinny other than the maid so better to have Vinny as an extra 🙂

What is it that scares people from pursuing what they really want? Is it the fear of change? The expectations of family or peers? The standards of society?

Well, in the case of Gurov & Anna, all of the above apply, and I feel like the same can be said about many people in today’s society. I mean, there’s a reason why I see plastic smiles or bored expressions on the faces of most people I encounter. In general, most individuals tend to hide the one thing that brings them true happiness, due to the fear of the consequences of exposing that secret. But despite their miserable state, why are people still so hesitant to do what will make them happy?

Does the importance of maintaining one’s public status really outweigh the benefits of achieving happiness? And in actually achieving true happiness, why does it always seem to take place in private? Also, why does it always become so difficult to balance our well being with living in the public world?

 I’m not saying that these two characters should rush into the process of exposing their affair, because that would only lead to chaos. I also understand why their efforts to make their relationship public will be a struggle. However, this type of situation made me think of how people could be experiencing the same today, or how people continually struggle to break out of their shells and improve their lives for a change.

Baudelaire writes his poems in a depressing manner and the imperfections of “man”. In every poem there is the mention of darkness, a key word in describing humans and their unhappiness. It seems that people just want want they don’t have and ultimately the cause of their unhappiness or dissatisfaction with life. “Dissatisfied with everything, dissatisfied with myself, I long to redeem myself and to restore my pride in silence and solitude of the night. Souls…strenghten me, sustain me, keep me from the vanities of the world and its contaminating fumes.”(Baudelaire 1396) He describes the world as such a materialistic place yet he himself cares about his pride and reputation. People are drawn to secrets due to “…a fairy has bestowed the love of masks and masquerading, the hate of home and the passion for roaming.”(Baudelaire 1396) Because a “fairy has bestowed” the curiosity in man is what makes them restless and want to experience all there is in life but yet they complain and whine about life itself. Of course selfishness is human nature, “But what does it matter what reality is outside myself, so long as it has helped me to live, to feel that I am and what I am?”(Baudelaire 1397) A perfect phrase to explain the selfishness of man, that he only thinks of himself and his thoughts are the only important reasonings. There is never satisfaction because a person will always want more, want what they do not have, or believe that “the grass is greener on the other side” which is not necessarily true. Baudelaire wrote “It always seems to me that I should be happy anywhere but where I am” (Baudelaire 1397) yet he ends it with “Anywhere! Just so it is out of the world!” He is not satisfied with anyplace on earth thus he conclude to be anywhere but this world. Baudelaire seem to portray men as people who just do not know what they want in life, instead claims that they want everything else.

Similar with “The Lady with the Dog” by Chekhov, where Gurov is a man who moves from one woman to the next even though he is married, proves that he is not satisfied with his life. He begins his double life and keeping it a secret from the world. Yet he ends up falling in love with the one woman, Anna, who is also married and lives far away. He does not see the pleasure in his life other than when he is with Anna,” everything in the world is beautiful really, everything but our own thoughts and actions, when we lose sight of the higher aims of life, and of our dignity as human beings,”(Chekhov 1528) and thats because he can’t have her all to himself. Gurov eventually realizes that people may not be who they really are, that everyone has a double life just like his own. What is shown on the surface is a facetious mask that people hide behind to protect their reputation or who they really are, conforming to society and hiding their deepest desires. “He began to judge others by himself, no longer believing what he saw and always assuming that the real and the only interesting life of every individual goes on as under cover of night, secretly.”(Chekhov 1534)

These two authors show that everyone has secrets, everyone have a mask on which they show to the world, and only in “darkness”, alone with their own thoughts are they truly themselves. They also show how greedy man can be by wanting what they cannot have therefore they are unhappy beings roaming the earth aimlessly and dissatisfied.

“The Lady with the Dog” is about two people who find each other and fall in love and they end up trying to be together. Even though they are both married, they still want each other.

The thing that struck me the most about the story was when Dimitri realized that he was living a double life, “one open, seen and known by all who cared to know” and another “running its course in secret.” Dimitri also doesn’t see people the same way anymore, whenever he looks at someone, he wonders what the other side of them are.

This is a picture of what is supposed to be a white Pomeranian, Anna’s dog.

Image from google images.

Paris Spleen is a collection of poems. Each poem has a place or time that turns into something meaningful and deep.

I think this artwork of Baudelaire best gives me an image of how he would look, after reading his poems.Image from google images.

Throughout the Scrivener, every time the narrator asks Bartleby something, he says he “prefers not” rather than “will not to”. I think that he’s speaking more emotionally than logically. I realized that at the end he dies, and I think you can presume his death by looking at what he’s detaching himself from. Especially at the end, when to eat is the last thing that is asked of him to do, he “prefers not to” and ideologically this could mean that by emotionally denying food is detaching yourself from life itself.

Melville’s story is about a Lawyer who hires a scrivener by the name of Bartleby. As one reads the story, Bartleby comes across as a very strange character. He is so “peculiar”, that he is able to grab the Lawyer’s attention to the point that the Lawyer deems himself the responsibility to disclose readers about the life of Bartleby. Ironically, the Lawyer himself states that he is unable to provide a full biography of Bartleby because there isn’t enough “material” on the man.

From the reading, not much information is given about Bartleby as compared to other characters: Turkey and Nippers. With the introduction of Turkey and Nippers, you may notice how detailed Melville is in his descriptions of these two characters. Turkey is described of as an old man who is quite peaceful and productive before 12 meridian. However, after 12 meridian he becomes very “energetic,” “strange, inflamed, flurried,” “with his tongue insolent” and very “noisy.” In addition to his traits, Turkey’s outer appearance (in terms of his clothes) was very messy. They were stained, oily, smelly, and loose. Also, Turkey couldn’t even afford a decent coat and when the Lawyer was kind enough to give him a “highly respectable –looking coat of (his) own—a padded gray coat, of a most comfortable warmth, and which buttoned straight up from the knee to the neck,” (note again Melville’s keen attention to details) Turkey was rude instead of being respectful.

In addition, upon meeting Nippers one may assume that Melville introduced such a character as the polar opposite of Turkey. Nipper was a young man who had the following issues: indigestion and being too ambitious. I personally found the part where he is always trying to align the legs of the desk to get it balanced a bit humorous because no matter how many methods he comes up with to fix the problem, he is always unsuccessful. But on the positive note, Nippers is always well dressed and is efficient at working in the afternoons (opposite of Turkey).

Interestingly enough, both Nippers and Turkey are quite opposite of each other. However, when it comes to ginger nut cakes, the two characters are similar at that moment. The both of them love to eat the cake and therefore send Ginger Nut to buy the cakes for them.

Now when it comes to Bartleby, he is quite individual who used to do his work monotonously. He eventually gave up doing anything, and his statement “I prefer not to,” became a mantra for him. The Lawyer who was a Good Samaritan, tried to help Bartleby as much as he could. But, it came to a point that the Lawyer ran out of options and having tried many ways to get rid of Bartleby, he himself ended moving away from Bartleby by getting new office (here once again we see Melville’s humorous side).  Think about it, if there were a Bartleby in today’s job environment, he/she would be fired and gone instead of the company or the boss having to move the headquarters. Quite frankly, would there really be a Bartleby today, especially with so many people unemployed? If those unemployed knew of Bartleby’s actions, they would be referring to him as a lunatic who is wasting a good opportunity and working for a nice boss.

But, can Bartleby be blamed for his lack of work ethics? When we discover his previous job at Washington, it was quite depressing. I think every time he burned a letter, a part of him also went into the fire. The sadness probably overtook his soul and body to a point that he stopped living his life. At the jail he would stare over the wall and into the sky. One can only guess as to what Bartleby was thinking when he would look outside the office window towards the brick wall or beyond the jail wall. We can never be sure exactly what got the best of Bartleby, but it can be inferred that he lived an unhappy life. The story’s lesson is: live your life and be happy. Despair and loneliness is the way to be.