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

In Aura, Felipe leaves his ordinary life behind, represented by his conscious state of mind, and enters Consuelo’s home to experience the unrealities of his subconscious, much like how a surrealist artists taps into his/her subconscious to create artwork. Euler’s equation, a never ending spiral on an imaginary axis, represents how tapping into the subconscious can create a never ending loop that battles imaginary vs. reality. I want to use this image to show how Felipe ends up staying in this endless loop, as he chooses not to leave Aura, and remain in his subconscious. I will use an actual drawing of the image for the essay but since the actual equation in the mathematical world battles reality, I thought it would fit well.

I agree with your take on Hamm’s character. He is clearly in distress and ready to die, and makes everyone in house know his pain. From calling and ordering around Clov to putting his parents in a trash bin, Hamm definitely seems to be putting out his anger on everyone in the house. I also agree that the actor that was chosen really played Hamm’s character well. The way he played his part made it clear how depressed and grumpy he was supposed to be.

I like how you brought up how Consuelo is trying to recapture her youth in the story. I mostly focused on how Felipe is trying to leave his unsatisfied, busy world behind, but there is another side to the story. I think your right when you say that Felipe is there for a purpose of helping Conseulo capture her youth again. The quote you referenced includes, “when the memory of the youth, of youth re-embodied, rules the darkness”. I think that this is a really good quote that shows that Consuelo is trying to capture her youth, and Felipe is helping her do it.

Ruben:

Carlos Fuentes’ use of the second person present-tense in his work “Aura” mimics the style of a dream.  When writing “Aura,” I believe Fuentes’ goal was to passively force the reader into imagining him or herself in the story, like a dream.  Had Fuentes used “he” and “her as oppose to “you,” there would be a disconnect between the story and the reader.  However, I don’t believe that Fuentes meant for the reader to exactly put him or herself in Felipe’s shoes, for Felipe’s character is too precise for that to work.

Fuentes writes: “You climb the stairs behind that sound in the darkness, and you’re still unused to the obscurity . . . She moves away with the same faint rustle of taffeta, and you weren’t able to see her face again” (Fuentes 836). Fuentes’ use of the second person in present-tense is also beneficial in engaging the readers, for “Aura” is a horror story and the reader becomes more scared and engaged thanks to Fuentes’ use of “you.”

Sharada:

Carlos Fuentes uses the second person in Aura to convey the introspection the main character, Felipe Montero, experiences as he gets accustomed to his new job and new life. Using the second person proves to be effective when he expresses his thoughts about Aura, the girl he fell in love with: “In the hallway, you clench you teeth. Why don’t you have courage enough to tell her that you love the girl?” (Fuentes 842). In this instance, it seems like he is using the second person to reflect on himself and his decisions, which makes the readers do the same, and question Felipe’s next move. Felipe seems to be scolding himself for not acting a certain way when he uses the second person, suggesting that the author is using the second person for a certain self-examination. I do not think that the author uses the second person to put the audience in Felipe position for everything, but at times of introspection I think that the audience naturally puts themselves in his positon. In this section of the story, Fuentes deals with his love for the girl, which is why using the second person proves to be effective for conveying his emotions.

Jessica:

Carlos Fuentes uses second person in this story to exemplify the theme of self realization. He realizes that he is the general and that Aura is Consuelo. But there is a deeper realization here. He realizes that Aura the girl he has fallen in love with is the very woman he considered old and with no energy. As life went on, the love he had fir this woman faded away and seeing Aura he was able to see Consuelo as the woman he fell in love with. It states in the passage, “I am only asking you to see, in the great love which you say you have for me, something sufficient, something that can fill both of us” (850). His use of “you” helps the realization come across to the reader. It makes it seem as though he is actually speaking with the reading and explaining what he realized. This element helps for a reader to put themselves in his place and fully grasp what he realized. Thus element helps the reader imagine the situation as well.

Frank:

The use of “you” that Carlos Fuentes uses is a very interesting tool. In my opinion, it is used so that you the reader believe that you are the main character in the story. It makes you think that everything that is happening to Felipe is actually happening to you. This is symbolic because shows exactly  how Felipe felt when reading the manuscripts of Consuelo’s husband. On page 851, Felipe finally realizes the truth when looking at a picture of General Llorente, “you discover only yourself; blurred, lost, forgotten but you, you, you.” This quote shows that Felipe finally realizes that he is actually General Llorente and that Aura is Consuelo. Now when he reads the manuscripts, he is also reading in the “you” context because as he reads he is actually reading about himself. As we read, the “you” is used because the author wants us to think that when we’re reading this we think that we are Felipe. The use of “you” makes the story come alive and this quote shows how Felipe was finally able to realize that the life he is living is the life of the General, because they are the same person.

Frank:

In the “Acrostic” by Killoffer it is evident that there is a focus on an individual’s role in society. In this cartoon, the characters are questioning society and questioning the lives they have. “Should we run away?” and “Start over” are common questions that these characters ask themselves in this story. The characters in this cartoon are unsure of their roles in society and are unsure of what they exactly they want. They are unsure if they are contempt with their current lives or if they should move on and get a brand new chance. At first the characters feel that if they leave they will have a better life, but as the story moves on even if they do leave the characters feel that no matter what they are doomed. Throughout the cartoon these characters contemplate their role in society, do they belong in the society that they are currently in or do they belong somewhere else? The characters are unsure of where they belong and what society is right for them.

Jess:

In the “Acrostic” by Killoffer it is clear that individualism is a central theme in the cartoon. The people in the cartoon consistently express their confusion in society. Individualism, or rather the lack of individualism, is strong as each person expresses how they want to leave and being home is just like “dying”. The short phrases from each sequence shows how the confusion within the individuals is prevalent. It also shows how the individuals do not want to live in their “home” because they want to go somewhere where they can be expressive. As one of the characters said “coming home, is just like, dying”. Dying is equivalent to losing the identity of one’s identity. The characters are struggling to stand out and find a meaning in life. Without this meaning being home is like not being alive.

Lauren:

The first cartoon, “Kaspar” relates to how the individual’s role in society, specifically with regards to how one is expected to conform to society’s norms and obey authority and is a society in which difference is looked down upon. Everyday, the main character follows his everyday normal routine, such as waking up with a piece of bread by his side and him waiting a moment more to see if there is water in his jug after drinking it. Eventually, there comes a little man in black with a book who teaches the main character everything he is supposed to do in society based on what is expected and labeled as “societal norms.” The main character’s role is to adhere to these standards and behave in a way that is deemed appropriate in society. The man in black teaches the main character how to walk and also tries to train the main character to be a horseman like his father was. This exemplifies how the main characters role in society was that he was expected to follow authority and was not able to think or act in a way that was different from the norm.t At the end of At the end of the cartoon when the little man in black leaves the main character alone, the main character does not know how to think for himself now that there is no one to give him instruction/command. As a result, he stays standing where he is and is drawn in a forlorn and isolated manner, he is unsure of whether he is content with a life in which he is unable to think for himself.

Sharada:

“Kaspar”, by Diane Obomsawin , the first of the two graphic novels shows that individuals in society start by knowing nothing about how the world works and must learn through others, seen as the main character of the cartoon explains the small scope of knowledge about people he possesses at the beginning of the cartoon. The character explains how he would wake up to food and water, not knowing where it came from: “…Just as it didn’t occur to me that there could be anybody else outside me” (Obomsawin 4). This instance shows that since he did not see anyone bring him food and water, and no one told him how it got there, he had no idea to think that it came from somewhere else. This suggests that individuals cannot assume and understand concepts naturally, and that someone must come and show them. Just as Kasper did not know who brought him food, individuals must depend on others to show the m how the world works.

I like the quotes you used to describe the reactions of the father and the chief clerk, but I do not think that the father was ever calm about the situation. The moment Gregor’s father realized what had happened to his son, he reacted with anger and hostility. You mentioned that he eventually turned out angry, but I think that he immediately turned angry. I think that this is how the father dealt with the situation. I do agree that the clerk was scared the whole time, which contrasts how the father dealt with Gregor’s transformation. The example of the father kicking Gregor back into his room was a good way of showing the anger the father felt.

In the story, The Metamorphosis, Gregor faces his father and Chief Clerk after his transformation. Gregor’s father seems hostile when approached by his son: “At any moment the stick in his father’s hand threatened to strike him a fatal blow to the back of the head” ( Kafka 220). The fact that the father is swatting him with a stick shows that he’s grasping this situation with hostility. While the father is angry, the chief clerk seems scared. When Gregor tries to convince the chief clerk that he is still fit to work, the Chief runs away: ” Gregor moved sharply to make sure of catching up to him; The chief clerk must have sensed something, because he took the last few steps at a single bound and disappeared” ( Kafka 219). The chief clerk could not have been as close to Gregor has Gregor’s father was, which is why his reaction proceeded to be filled with fear rather than anger in this particular situation. The Clerk “disappeared” when he sensed Gregory, which indicates the he was too scared to face the situation, which the father was confronting the situation by trying to “strike” Gregory with a stick.

I thought the idea of class structure  you brought up is really interesting. I do think that this played a huge role in Miss Julie’s decisions throughout the play, but I did not think of it until you brought up the barriers that Miss Julie had to face. This may be the reason that Strindberg portrays Miss Julie as strong individual but ends up completely dependent on her love for a man. He might have done this for the sole purpose of highlighting this class and gender conflict. I think that this highlights a really important theme in the play.

In my opinion, Miss Julie, from “Miss Julie”, is completely misrepresented by Strindberg. From the beginning, he portrays the woman as selfish, blunt, and a slight feminist. However she expresses a completely different side of here when she is desperate for Jean’s love: “Say that you love me—else, what am I, without it? (Strindberg 15). Miss Julie makes it clear that she would be nothing without Jean’s love, which contradicts the independent woman Strindberg portrayed her as. In this moment she takes a desperate tone that was not apparent throughout the beginning of the play, and I believe this shows her true personality.

When she is about to commit suicide, she expresses: “I don’t believe in anything anymore…In nothing—nothing” (Strindberg 30). Strindberg introduced Miss Julie as strong girl whose not afraid to express her somewhat condescending opinions. Now, as it looks like she has lost all hope, it is clear that her personality revolves around her dependency of love, and this goes against the whole introduction that Strindberg set up for the audience. The specific words: “I don’t believe in anything”, prove that Miss Julie has lost her grasp on reality, and is no longer the strong individual Strindberg made her out to be. This brings up the idea of “half-woman” that the author describes Miss Julie as. I think that this means the Miss Julie has a double personality. At one moment of the story she stood as a whole individual, but once she fell in love with the servant she lost a lot of her personality, making her less of a woman.