great works ii – 2850 jta 12:25-2:05: love letters from the world

Your Responses on May 19: Assessment of Your Work

A few of you said you have become more used to abstraction in texts (great!) Many still feel they need to become much more detailed (yes, this gives your writing and communication more authenticity). Others feel they want to learn to be more comfortable with public speaking. This is a question of practice, so do so whenever you get the opportunity. It will help you greatly in interviews and then later in your careers. Others said that the hybridity of the course helped to make them more organized and responsible, and this is a great by-product of a hybrid course, I think . Some said they appreciated the different perspectives that people had for each text, and that this helped this broaden their way of thinking (and that makes me very happy!). Jacqueline mentions that she feels she has more writing in her other courses now (and I think this trend will continue) so this will help everyone’s writing overall. To be an effective communicator, whether in writing or orally, is really a question of practice.

As for me, I feel I’ve learned that I need to give everyone more time for free writing exercises (and think some of you felt rushed). I also am going to rethink the longer in-class writing assignments. I also want to devote even more time to close reading of the text during f2f time together.

Thank-you all for a lovely semester, and I wish you all the very best!

(And don’t forget, the final exam is due by May 22, 12 pm, noon)

Jeanne

Differences between first, second and third person:

Yes, readers often feel as if they are “directly involved in the story” (Muneeb, Maria, Tara) and it’s interesting that he notes it was more difficult to translate the 2^nd person into the third person; you switch from an observer (3^rd person) to an actor (Daphne); Interestingly, Jamie doesn’t see a difference between these choices, and certainly all readers have different reactions; Katerina agrees that it doesn’t seem to make a difference (but she also agrees that it makes the reader more “involved” in the story, so could that possibly be the difference?); Jacqueline makes an interesting comment about switching from third person to second person, when she says: “you almost forget who the author is talking about: him or me?” This comment gives a good deal of insight into the choice of point of view and the involvement of the reader, I think; Francesca said it was easier to imagine what was happening in the second person; Bintou points out that when we switch to the first or third person, we also seem to want to switch to the past tense (the original is in the present tense) and the present is, of course, much more immediate, giving more a sense of urgency; Susana points out that the first person “grabs” our attention much more than the third (Preston agrees); Joseph reminds us that the first person could also put us in the shoes of the protagonist, and I wonder if the second person, however, is more intrusive? Keauna seems to agree when she says that in the second person, the reader “gets the sense that (s)he is being told what to do” (and Jinwoo agrees); Bintou says that the second person feels “more real” and the third person seems to be just informing us of something; Daphne makes a very interesting comment when she suggests that each “person” gives a “different perspective to the story.” Rebecca makes the comment that the second person is like being “hypnotized,” and yes, there is a trancelike quality to this; Songyun makes the interesting observation that the second person is like “taking the reader on a journey through Felipe’s stream of consciousness,” and Tara and Michelle feel it is simply more emotional; Jorge G. feels that first person is a “happy medium” between second and third (interesting!);

Below are some of your more salient comments. Please think about these carefully, as you will also see similar themes in previous works we’ve read. They will also be of use on the final exam!

 Themes that seem to connect all three works to Endgame:

Emptiness and a sense of purposelessness; “darkness” that cannot be obliterated by the “light”; life as struggle and pain; an individual being “crushed” by the world around; the idea of existence being incomprehensible, and therefore meaningless; life being full of “random objects and garbage” and therefore any meaning we may give life is at best horrifying (and ultimately Nihilistic); the use of dark color and dim lighting as a metaphor for the purposelessness of our existence; the individual (Clove and the Swan) as ultimately helpless, and a “victim” of life; Tara makes a very good observation about “The Chestnut Tree” and its connection to Endgame:

“We were a heap of existences, uncomfortable, embarrassed at ourselves, we hadn’t the

slightest reason to be there. none of us, each one confused, vaguely alarmed, felt

superfluous in relation to the others,” as Roquentin is describing human existence as

something that does not have an influence on anything, and in essence doesn’t exist at

all.

Other comments that bring these three works together: the idea of life as suffering; the idea that the only thing we can do about our pain and suffering is take a “pain killer,” a metaphor for simply being able to mask the pain, temporarily, but not being able to actually cure our pain; the idea of the individual’s isolation from all others; Keauna makes the comment (from “The Chestnut Tree”) that existence must be embraced, and I wonder if there is a glimmer of hope for all of these characters (and us!) in this idea? Jamie also points out that in both the poem and Endgame there is the opportunity for beauty and hope, even if the characters don’t take this opportunity; Jorge G. seems to point to the other side of this issue when he says that “Life can be magnificent on the surface but with no real identity or purpose”; the idea that although we can act, our actions are essentially meaningless; the idea of being “stuck” in our existence; the idea of hopelessness; the idea that existence is only that, we exist, end of sentence (or end of game?)

Your Responses on April 28^th: Comparing a scene from the text of Endgame with a production. As you all have remarked, the choices of the director and actors greatly influences our interpretation of the text. Remember, those are just choices, and would not necessarily be sanctioned by the author. Your own interpretations and expectations of how things should be done are also quite valid! We’ll talk more about this in class.

Remember, too, that just because your name is listed in the group (or just because you actually put the comments on the site) doesn’t mean you’ll get credit. You need to have posted twice.

Directing: tone of voice: yes the directorial choice shows these two very angry at/bitter with one another. Also, Clov’s comic movements are almost silly (Beckett’s interest in vaudeville to show Absurdism). Good observations, Jacqueline! Muneeb also points out the angry that emerges in the production. Daphne, as well, points out that the tone of voice is often quite different than one expects when reading the text.  Clov’s being directed to not look directly at Hamm’s face (Keauna) seems to show their isolation from one another. Rebecca points out Clov’s physicality in the production, and how that helps us to see him as someone with low self-esteem (good comment!) Songyun makes the interesting comment that while the production makes us feel Hamm’s control more poignantly, the more subtle references and philosophical themes may be somehow more subdued than in the text. Katerina feels the sadness indeed comes out more in the production.

Acting: Bintou makes the interesting comment that “When they were happy they weren’t happy enough, and when they were angry they weren’t angry enough.” Yes, at times the acting seems wooden, and this is part of Beckett’s plan, I think, to highlight the artificial nature of their (and our?) lives. Contrarily, Nicole (and Maria) points out that Clov seems to be more enthusiastic in her section of the text, than she would have expected (again, to highlight artificiality?). Jamie makes a very interesting comment about the acting choices at the end, saying that he doesn’t necessarily like being directed how to interpret the dialogue, and says that he doesn’t know if he is “comfortable with giving an actor or director the power to fill in these gaps of uncertainty.” ( Jorge G. and Farhan agree, saying they’re happy with more guidance, which is also valid) This is a very valid comment, and remember, you do have to agree with the director’s choices! Jiwoo, on the other hand, seems to like the fact that the actors are bringing the scene to life with their facial expressions (and yes, they are also asking us to interpret these characters in a specific way).

Costume Design/Set: Joseph points out how different our expectations can be from reading a text, but remember, the choices in costume and set are simply that, choices, so you are not “wrong” Joseph, you simply had a different vision for costumes/set. The director makes a very particular choice, when choosing these “dirty old clothes.” Maria points out, too, the starkness and emptiness of the set, and Onu seems to agree, but does see fluctuation in tone. Beckett seems to want to emphasize the apocalyptic nature of this world. Susanna brings out the very good observation that the dress indicates the “master-servant” relationship between Hamm and Clov. Michelle makes a good observation when she notes that costume and set design all contribute to the bleakness of the play, underlining the bleakness of what the world has become for these characters. Joaquin points out that actually seeing the trash cans changes his perspective on the text.

Filming: Jorge M. brings up the very interesting comment that filming allows the unique point of view of getting very close to the face, something that cannot happen in a theater production. Here, the director is using Hamm’s facial expressions to underline a way of looking at the character, and a way, possibly, that Beckett never intended?  Does filming humanize the actors in a way that is not consistent with Beckett’s ideas

Thanks to all! Many of your questions are provocative and engaging! Some problems to consider:

• It will not be a good idea to compare/contrast two texts for this assignment, as it’s a relatively short essay.
• Look again at your question, and brainstorm about what is engaging for you. Robert Frost said, interestingly, “No discovery in the writer, no discovery in the reader.” In other words, if you’re not interested, no one else will be either, so really think about how you can make this question an exploration.
• After you decide what is truly engaging for you, try to narrow your focus of exploration. Try to get at something very specific.
• Remember the intent of this essay. Some of you are forgetting the journey model (it needs to be a part of the thesis) so read the assignment sheet, again, and ask questions in class.

Some of the more effective questions are (and although all of these could use some honing, but essentially are quite thoughtful). Remember, these are only questions, not thesis statements:

Jorge M.: In Franz Kafka’s “Judgement,” Georg’s father exclaims that all this time, Georg has only cared about himself and no one else. Do you agree with the father’s remarks? Is there anything that Georg is not able to see or perhaps does not want to see like the example of the prisoners in “Plato’s Allegory of the Cave?”

Daphne: In “The Metamorphosis” by Kafka, Gregor turns into a cockroach and we see how the people in his life react to this transformation. Although Gregor suffers this tragedy some people in his life (including Gregor himself) do not react realistically, how does Gregor in “The Metamorphosis” relate to Aristotle’s Tragic Hero model? Specifically, how does Gregor’s metamorphosis help him to gain more awareness and self-discovery?

Jiwoo: Does Gregor’s family in the “Metamorphosis” merely hate Gregor’s physical appearance? Is there anything the family does not see or does not want to see like the prisoners who do not see the outside world in the “Plato’s Allegory of the Cave“?

Susanna: Describe how the imagery in The Metamorphosis compares and contrasts to Freud’s idea of the subconscious. Is the subconscious of Gregor what leads to his downfall and eventual death?

Jacqueline:  Does Bartleby have the trait of nobility like that of a tragic hero or does his story actually exemplify an anti- hero because of his lack of response to the issue at hand?

Thank- you for your perceptive, thought provoking comments! Here are some of your more salient observations:

(Also, just a friendly reminder: Remember, even if you are listed as a part of a group, you do not receive credit unless you actually post. As well, if you only comment on another post (just do Post 2) and do not create your own post (Post 1) then you also do not get credit for being present.)

Allegory of the Cave:

Susanna points out that there is a stark difference, because Gregor learns nothing (as opposed to the prisoner who escapes the cave); Muneeb comments that both narratives have the theme of being “trapped” and indeed, that is a valid way of comparing the two stories. Gregor’s death, seen in this way, could be his acceptance of that situation; Francesca points to the theme of isolationism, and this certainly connects the two works; Jacqueline makes the interesting observation that Gregor’s family shows growth and so does come to terms with the truth, but the prisoners of the cave refuse to “face the truth”; Nicole, however, feels that both Gregor and the escaped prisoner see the truth of their lives; Tara makes the interesting observation that the prisoners who do not escape are like Gregor’s family, and refuse to accept the reality of the situation; Bintou makes a very interesting comment when she says that Gregor’s family is very like the prisoners who don’t escape, in that they know this “cockroach” is their son and brother, but refuse to acknowledge it; Joseph points out that Gregor does know the truth of his role in the world, but gives that up; Keauna makes a very compelling comparison between the escaped prisoner and the family, after Gregor’s death, that the family finally can move on and take their place in the world; Jamie points to an important connection, that both the family and the prisoners want to stay safe in their “old” way of thinking; Onu makes an interesting comment about the use of light and dark in both works, and how this reflects the attitudes of the characters; Joaquin points to the compelling theme of isolationism in both works, and how this is connected to the dark; Katerina makes a very interesting comment about how both works explore the idea of escaping reality; Jamie points out that these two stories are about people’s reactions to change, and that they would all rather stay safe and limited; Jorge G. sees both protagonists as having learned some important truth, but that no one in their society wants to learn that truth.

Kaspar:

Jiwoo sees a difference between the endings, saying that Gregor in fact learns his (unfortunate) position in his family, while Kaspar learns nothing and wants to learn nothing; Rebecca sees “The Met.” and “Kaspar” as both showing protagonists who crave “attention from others” (yes, I see that too); Michelle makes the interesting observations that both Gregor and Kaspar do not question there isolation from others; Songyun points out that these two protagonists end quite differently. Gregor’s passing is actually quite positive for the family (so has Gregor made a sacrifice to help his family?) and Kaspar, on the other hand, is “lost.”

You all make some very compelling arguments about the three aspects of the nature of the ending that you were asked to examine more closely.  I’ve organized your responses into these three categories.  Look at these closely, at they will also help you to understand what Kafka is doing in “The Metamorphosis.”

Ultimately, who is responsible for Georg’s decision at the end?

Some of you opt for the father (Francesca, Joseph, Jiwoo, Nicole, Jorge M.) as he is the one giving the command, and yes, as Francesca points out, there is the indication of a backstory here, of a relationship that is less than what it should be, between Georg and his father. Kafka often creates an unstated tension between family members. Questions:  Is this tension unstated because the characters, themselves, don’t want to address this?  Whereas Jiwoo agrees that the father is responsible, he points out that Georg’s problems with his father are, in fact, “doable and surmountable.” Question:  Is Georg also responsible? (and Susanna, Katerina and Onu suggest this, as well). Michelle believes both Georg and his father are responsible, and Kafka often indicates that guilt is shared. Fahran goes deeper and suggests that Georg commits suicide because he feels “unwanted,” and this is a theme Kafka is always coming back to, that the individual’s needs are not really important.  Question:  Is Kafka implying that this is an isolated problem, or a problem that exists in society as a whole?

Unrealistic nature of the ending:

Jacqueline makes the very important observation that there is a “dream-like” affect here. She also uses the quote:  “He held the railing tight like a starving man clutches food.   He jumped over, like the excellent gymnast he had been in his youth…” The dark humor is effective here, I think, too, in showing that there is something not quite real about this scene. Food, as well, is very important to Kafka (as Jacqueline also pointed out in Bartleby, during her presentation) and we’ll discuss this more in class. Keauna points out that the relationship between father and son is realistic, but Georg’s decision at the end was as if “the father put a spell on him.” Daphne suggests that the ending is not only unrealistic, but absurd; that is, there seems no reason at all for Georg to do what he did, and yet he did it. Tara, as well, feels there is really no solid reason for Georg’s action. Jorge G. finds it unrealistic, as well, for similar reasons. Do you think Kafka is trying to say something about the control that one person has over another? Songyun makes a very interesting comment about the tension between guilt and punishment (and you can also look again at Aristotle’s definition of the tragic hero). Preston points out that it is unrealistic because Georg is not considering his options, he’s simply reacting. Joaquin, too, sees the ending as “rushed” but also as the culmination of emotions that have been building up (that we were not allowed to see).

The last line of the narrative:

I love Annie’s idea that Georg’s suicide is a literal blockage for the character himself, his family, and the society around him. Kafka is very interested in the idea of the individual’s happiness being somehow a hindrance to the smooth machinery of the family and surrounding society. This is something we’ll see even more poignantly in “The Metamorphosis.” Bintou points out the “silent” death that Georg had planned for himself, to jump when no one could hear him fall. The individual dying alone and in utter silence is something else Kafka is interested in. Susanna points out two symbolic meanings for the last line, both of which are really interesting: When one dies, life goes on; No one really cares about Georg (or anyone?) and Aly agrees with the second point. Rebecca suggests that the last line simply reminds us that life goes on, and that we cannot let ourselves get “stuck” in the past or in our problems. Tara makes the interesting comment that Georg’s suicide is an act of freedom.

Many of you offered some good tips, for everyone to improve his or her performance, and you pointed to some viable areas to work on. Also, from your responses, I learned that I, too, can help with things I need to work on, so this was productive, I think, for all of us!

Helpful suggestions for you: Working out your blog assignments first on google docs (to organize your ideas); thinking of our analytical work in ways that can help you with your other courses (and later with your employment); use your group to actually exchange ideas and revise your own ideas; if you are having trouble with the texts (and especially if English is your second language) then try reading more slowly or even reading the more difficult parts twice; using college preparation as a way of working out how to balance your school work and your personal life; think of free-writing as a way to just get ideas on paper, this is an important part of any analytical process;

Things you can work on: speaking up in class (and one can “practice” a response in a blog, to help prepare you to respond in class) and trying to get yourself to speak up more will actually help to improve your confidence level when speaking in front of others. When you speak up, don’t worry about being “right” but about expressing what you truly feel. Take a chance with an original idea; working to understand the difference between summary and analysis; working on narrowing your focus in your larger writing assignments (this will allow a more in-depth analysis, and will, I think, also feel more rewarding to you as a writer and thinker); working to go more deeply into the text: working to ask yourself questions as you read, then making a note of those questions and bring them to class;

Things I need to work on: Helping everyone to understand that your group is your core group to work with each other and help each other; giving you more time for free-writing: perhaps writing, then reflecting, then a bit more writing? We can talk about this. Something I’d like to try with you is called a “silent dialogue.”

Thanks to everyone for your interesting proposals for exam questions and topics.

Most of you have presented some valid, and often compelling suggestions for midterm topics/questions. As in the case for most students, the most troublesome challenge with this assignment is narrowing the topic. Remember, on the exam, you will be asked to respond in paragraph form, so you will need to make sure your topic sentences are appropriate for a paragraph.

Several of you mention ideas that connect to a journey model, to the search for enlightenment, or to the protagonist as the hero. These are valid topics, of course, and ones we have spent a good deal of time discussing, but you will need to narrow these ideas quite a bit, in order to write a convincing response.

For example, some of you talk about the protagonist as a hero, and that’s a good place to start, but if you were asked to use the idea of the “hero” to compare or contrast two protagonists, how would you narrow this very large idea to a paragraph sized topic (one paragraph for each protagonist)?

Some suggestions: First, decide on what kind of hero this protagonist is: Traditional Hero (and if so, Campbell’s or Aristotle’s)? Anti-hero? Satanic Hero? A mixture of more than one? Your own definition? And you are absolutely welcome to use your own definition of a hero, but if you do so, be VERY specific. Then, after you decide what kind of hero the protagonist is, you would need to focus on a specific trait of that hero, yes, one specific character trait. This is very important, because if your topic sentence is not focused on something very specific, your entire paragraph will be much too general. Each paragraph should be an analysis, not a summary or paraphrase.

Remember our paragraph form: (and these items need not be in this order)

1 Concise topic sentence (your assertion, which is actually a sub-topic of your thesis)

2 Short introduction to your support (putting your quote in a context).

3 Support for your topic sentence/assertion (not more than one or two sentences). You are only to use one quote per paragraph, so make sure it is a very rich quote.

4 Explanation of why, very specifically, your quote defends your assertion. This is most of your paragraph, so you need to make sure you are doing an in-depth analysis of your chosen piece of text, and not simply a summary or paraphrase. You will certainly want to go back into the quote and point out specific words that “prove” your assertion.

Your responses on March 10^th:

(Just a note: A few of you were listed on the group’s title, but did not provide a post. If you were in this situation, you did not receive credit for being present.)

You all make compelling arguments for both Bartleby and the narrator as different kinds of heroes.

Traditional Hero: Bartleby:  Jiwoo; Jorge M.; Bintou; Jorge G.; Muneeb; Tara; Nicole; Jacquline; Michelle.  Here Bartleby’s refusal can be seen, as Jiwoo says, “the least he can do.”  This is often cited for modern heroes, that they live in a world where they are powerless to do anything but simply refuse to participate in an invalid society. Bintou and Tara point out that this is a kind of rebellion and so an action. Jaqueline makes a very interesting comment about Bartleby as qualifying for Aristotle’s tragic hero, and she points to the trait of nobility as proof, as Bartleby “takes the high road” of non-violence in his civil disobedience.

The narrator can also be seen as a traditional hero, in the sense that he does in fact act, when he does not do what is expected of him, and that is to fire him immediately. It’s interesting, because here is a provocative question: Can one sometimes “act” without acting? I think one can, but I wonder what others think? Nicole points out that the narrator, however, can be seen as acting, when he offers to take Bartleby home with him, and this is a very specific piece of evidence for her case. Jorge makes the comment that Bartleby’s death actually pointing to the “futility of our existence” proves that Bartleby in fact completes the heroic journey (but Bartleby didn’t send a letter to the narrator).

Anti-Hero: Daphne; Aly; Joseph; Farhan; Songyun

Bartleby can certainly be seen as the anti-hero, and his refusal, rather than being perceived as an act of civil disobedience, can be seen as simply giving up and doing nothing.

The narrator can, as well, be seen as the anti-hero. Yes, as Daphne points out, he connects Bartleby with humanity (and that is a very telling last line of the narrative). In other words, he sees that to be human is to be somehow already defeated, and the narrator, like Bartleby, can be seen as helpless here in this world. Joseph points out that the narrator, although seeing the deeper problem, never actually does anything, but just leaves his own offices. Farhan points to Bartleby’s isolationism, but the fact that his actions are inscrutable, makes him at best an anti-hero. Songyun puts Bartleby into this category, because he does not have the courage to act.

Satanic/Byronic Hero: Susanna; Keauna; Maria; Francesca; Joaquin; Onu;Rebecca;

Here, Bartleby’s refusal can certainly be seen as socially unacceptable, as Rebecca points out, and to defend this stance properly, one would have to show that his refusal could actually be potentially harmful for the society at large. Maria points out that Bartleby actually dies for his cause, and I wonder what others think? Francesca and Keauna make interesting comments, when they say that Bartleby is indeed rebelling, and even succumbing into Nihilism (which often could be said of the Satanic/Byronic hero). Joaquin sees Bartleby’s refusal as childish, and therefore socially unacceptable. Onu sees Bartleby’s behavior and actions as unjustified.

Other: Preston; Jamie

Preston makes a compelling argument for Bartleby being no hero at all, when he says that Bartleby acts “nonchalantly and without purpose.” Does Bartleby actually say anything to make us believe that he, in fact, in acting in a purposeful way? Are his actions enough to make us believe that? Just questions to think about. Jamie says that this is simply the case of a depressed individual, who cannot bring himself to live a viable life.