I can hear the ocean's roar

May the ocean sweep this forgotten foal

Til it is no more but a twisted soul,

Writhing within the arms of dark embrace,

Trapped deep inside this aqueous maze.

Let this heart sink deep into the abyss

As it shall be set anew by thy kiss,

Awake from the never-ending slumber

So thy wretched solitude be plundered.

Now hark the murmur of the blessed waves

For thy voice shall become the oceans roar.

Motherly Love

Many argue that a mother's love is the most pure and everlasting of them all. In some way or another I'm sure we all have come across little tidbits of affection from our mothers. Whether it is a small gesture such as a hug, or even a preparation of your favorite meal. For me it would certainly be strange growing up without a caring mother, let alone not having one. However there is no denying that a being a mother plays a significant role not only in the child's life, but on the woman as well. The Awakening explore not only this bond but the role of a woman as the ideal mother.

As stated before a mother's love may differ depending on the woman. Early on Chopin presents us with two characters that quickly appear to be foils of one another: Edna Pontellier and Adele Ratignolle. On the surface both of these women live somewhat similar lifestyles. Both are middle-upper class women appearing to be vacationing on the Grand Isle, have seemingly successful husbands, and are mothers to multiple children. However a person cannot be described simply by their lifestyle, and as such as one begins to go deeper, several differences can be noted between the two women. 

When both characters are introduced their certainly is a difference regarding their physical appearance, at least under Chopin's description. Mrs. Pontellier is introduced as being "rather handsome than beautiful" as well as having a face "captivating by reason of a certain frankness". When a woman is described as handsome instead of beautiful, one can interpret her to have somewhat masculine demeanor. However what strikes me the most is the way she is described as a person. Judging by this one may interpret her as being more thoughtful and complex emotionally than other characters, seeing how she is often lost in thought, staring endlessly at the horizon. Mrs. Ratignolle on the other hand, is presented as an almost otherworldly being of desire, described as being "the bygone heroine of romance and the fair lady of our dreams." This description certainly differs from Mrs. Pontellier, who is described in a more subtle manner, akin to her facial features. 

These characters differ from one another not only in appearance but in their roles as mothers. In the Pontellier family it may seem as if the one who is really taking care of the children is Mr. Pontellier. Considering the novel's historical setting, it may seem odd that the father is the one who looks after the boys. The book takes place during the late 19th century, a period where most women were expected to marry, and raise families. They saw their important role as being to exercise an influence for good over husband and children. While caring for a home and family was hard work for a poor woman, a relatively wealthy woman would have servants to do much of the work, and would often be able to devote a lot of time to her own interests. However it is only Mrs. Pontellier that seems to be restrained under this role, leaving her children under the care of their nurse while she focuses on other hobbies, such as painting. Mrs. Ratignolle on the other hand presents herself as the ideal mother, juxtaposing directly with the former. While Mrs. Pontellier seems to lack attention towards her children, Ratignolle more than makes up for it with her utter devotion towards her three children. This adoration goes to the extent of painstakingly knitting her children full body winter outfits in the middle of summer. Taking this in consideration it is no wonder Mr. Pontellier is worried regarding his wife's role as a mother.

At first glance it may appear as if Mrs. Pontellier is rather careless and uninterested when it comes to her children. However I believe that her behavior is not her fault, but rather due to her inexperience as a mother, considering how they were raised under the watchful eye of a nanny. In the following passage one can get a grasp on the lifestyle of the Pontellier boys:

 "If one of the little Pontellier boys took a tumble whilst at play, he was not apt to rush crying to his mother’s arms for comfort; he would more likely pick himself up, wipe the water out of his eves and the sand out of his mouth, and go on playing. Tots as they were, they pulled together and stood their ground in childish battles with doubled fists and uplifted voices, which usually prevailed against the other mother-tots. The quadroon nurse was looked upon as a huge encumbrance, only good to button up waists and panties and to brush and part hair; since it seemed to be a law of society that hair must be parted and brushed. (Pg 25)."

Judging from the boys' behavior, one can assume that the two boys were raised in such a way that they learned to be independent. From this paragraph one can also comprehend that the boys, much like their mother are forced to live under the constant restraints placed on them by society, evidenced by the fact that they are combed and dressed accordingly to their society. I can assimilate with the boys behavior, considering that I grew up in an environment where both parents were at work. As a result both my sister and I were under constant care of not one, but two nurses. I however disliked being raised by a relatively unknown woman and began to act independently, rarely asking for help. In this sense I believe that it is not Mrs. Pontellier's fault she appears uninterested, but rather an unforeseen consequence of the laws placed upon her by society.

...And if the mockingbird don't sing

Oh, now where have I stumbled into? Is this my long forgotten English blog? Why yes it is! Oh how I missed you so (for my three viewers that was sarcasm). Indeed, I have returned from my writing hiatus to amuse the internet with my often mindless ramblings and silly shenanigans about military ordinance. Following my journey through the seemingly endless pages of Hamlet, I have began a new chapter in my literary odyssey. Which is this new book I have begun you may ask. The answer to this question is non other than Kate Chopin's The Awakening. For those unacquainted with this book, it is a late 19th century piece often considered as being a pioneer text in the feminist movement.  

Not since Gabriel Garcia Marquez' masterpiece, Cien años de soledad, have I been so intrigued by the opening in a novel:

A green and yellow parrot, which hung in a cage outside the door, kept

repeating over and over: “Allez vous-en! Allez vous-en! Sapristi! That’s all right!”

He could speak a little Spanish, and also a language which nobody understood, unless it was the mocking-bird that hung on the other side of the door, whistling his fluty notes out upon the breeze with maddening persistence.

At first glance, it appears to be a simple image of a parrot and a mockingbird. However, this is being a course focusing greatly on the analytical aspect of literature, there must be an explanation behind this apparently unassuming scene. Birds are commonly represented in literature as being symbols for freedom. This generalization is too broad, which is why I believe that it is important to analyze each bird individually, seeing how they are in different situations and behavior, specially their speech patterns.

The protagonist in this paragraph is the parrot trapped within the cage rambling about. While I don't understand french at all, I was inevitably drawn to the bird's exclamation: "Allez vous-en! Allez vous-en! Sapristi! That’s all right!" Using one of the internet's most reliable tools, Google Translate, I was able to decipher the meaning behind the bird's French mouthful. However it was quite an unpleasant exclamation: "Go away! Go away! Damn it! That's All Right". Now why would the parrot exclaim such an impolite statement? I believe it is quite evident that the parrot feels taunted by the mockingbird, considering their radically different situations. The parrot is often kept as a domesticated bird, and as a result it is many times kept inside a cage and has its wings clipped. This along with the fact that it is trapped within the confines of its cage prevents it from flying and being free. A parrot is also cursed with the ability to repeat simple speech patterns, over and over again.

The mockingbird on the other hand is radically different from the parrot. It is commonly found in the wild and is known for singing beautiful melodies. The other side of the door could represent the barrier between wildlife (social ignorance) and the house where the parrot is kept (society). Considering the novel's feminist background, it could be highly possible that the parrot and the mockingbird represent the women and men during this time, respectively. This is definitely possible simply considering their habitats. The parrot cannot fly due to  both its clipped wings and its cage. Women during this time faced a considerable amount of social oppression and were not allowed to take part in society in the same way as men. It wasn't until recently that women have been allowed a place in the government and in the economy.Men, however have had social, political and economic dominance over the world for eons. This would explain the parrot's (woman's) remark, perhaps it felt the mockingbird (man) was taunting her and showing off his liberties and opportunities she is not able to achieve. The parrot's speech pattern is also akin to women often taking a second role in society doing things after men. The mockingbird's melody could be interpreted on the other hand as men being

However what is perplexing is the fact that the author states that the parrot spoke in a "language which nobody understood, unless it was the mockingbird that hung on the other side of the door". Could this mean that men understand what women have to endure? If this is the case why are women still oppressed by society in the eyes of the author? I must admit that analyzing a feminist text is a somewhat grueling task, considering that a lot of it often deals with the social injustices women must face from men. As a man I believe that I must put my discomfort aside and move forth with the text, for the sake of Chopin's legacy in the world of literature.

Theater 101: Prison edition

If there's anything independent productions have taught the world of entertainment is that sometimes a cast of completely unknown actors can give a mind-blowing performance. Such performers can be seen in anything from movies, music and plays. In today's world people see in these cast of unknowns the opportunity to shed new light to the material being performed. As part of an assignment for our english class we where asked to listen to an episode of the podcast This American Life. Said episode (hosted by Ira Glass, and mostly narrated by Jack Hitt) revolved around the concept of a production of Hamlet by a cast of unknown actors. The twist however centered around the fact that the play was not being performed by legitimate actors, but by inmates from a high security prison.

As the podcast began, I could not help but feel a mixed sense of amusement and confusion regarding the concept of a group of convicts performing Shakespeare. At first I thought that combining his delicate mastery of the English language with performances given by criminals would only result in disaster. However I was both deeply impressed and surprised with the level of comprehension they managed to gain from the play.

The podcast manages to give the listener an interesting and never heard before approach to the world that lies beyond the prison walls. TV shows and documentaries illustrate prisons as danger filled corridors where dread and violence loom at every corner. However, little is heard or seen from the eyes of the people who inhabit it. Many of the inmates inside feel confined not only by the walls and bars within the prison but by other men around them. As described by Big Hutch, it is an environment controlled by a hierarchical system: the strong take advantage of the week, much like a killer whale prays on smaller fish. They feel that in order to fit into the archetypical prison mold they must be tough and remain to themselves. However even they know that this is not the solution. The theater program at the prison aims to create a healthy program in which the prisoners can open up and interact with other people better in a de facto rehabilitation program

As a secondary objective, the podcast manages to give the listener a deep analysis the mind of a convict. The actors manage to identify with Hamlet beyond its lines and the pages of the play. Such an example of this understanding can be seen in James Ward and his role of Laertes. Before becoming involved in the much glamorized "thug life", Ward describes himself as being a Church man who gave his life a turn for the worse in order to gain himself a reputation and be liked by others. After being locked up and involved in the play, he felt that he was perfect for playing Laertes. He identified with the character since "[Laertes] was very angry, violently angry and i can identify with that and can play him very well because I've been playing that role my entire life." His connection with the character encouraged him to give a performance that managed to impress Hamlet-aficionados such as Hitt himself.

The narrator, Jack Hitt, states early into the episode that he is no stranger to Hamlet, having seen many forms and adaptations from around the world. I, on the other hand, have little to no experience whatsoever regarding Shakespeare's tragedy, having not even finished it. However the portrait given by Hitt and the convicts is a deeply interesting and complex one. Not only do they manage to break it down the tragedy to its simplest form, while retaining the core essence; they make the listener identify and understand the actors and the character better than any movie or theatrical adaptation.

We meet again...

So far I have read three analyses regarding the importance of Hamlet by several renowned philosophers and writing. The latest one in this analytical saga is authored by non other than Sigmund Freud, a man whose very name is practically synonymical with psychology. Freud takes a psychological approach to Hamlet instead of the more common literary interpretation. Reading this I could not help but reminisce about my philosophy course last year. I have dealt with the Austrian's texts in the past. When I say "dealt", I mean it in its most respectful form, I loved Freud and his beliefs, I just found it rather difficult to digest. However it is time to see whether the seeds planted a little over a year ago have blossomed.

In a very Freud-esque manner, Hamlet's psyche is immediately described as being handicapped by doubt, preventing him from acting. Other essays dealt with this issue and addressed it in an almost identical fashion to the one Freud uses. However he takes into consideration Hamlet's ability to act, rather than his inability to so, unlike other writers before him have failed to do so. To prove his point he brings up Polonius' murder, an unforeseen act caused by a sudden outburst of rage. What he believes handicaps Hamlet is not his methodological reasoning nor his intellect, but his conscience reprimanding his murderous thoughts. His conscience plays such an important role in controlling the prince's actions that it actually manages to suppress his hatred and anger towards his uncle. I believe that by doing this Freud is reminding the reader that Hamlet is indeed as human as any of us and despite his appetite for revenge, he cannot bear pollute his conscience with the atrocities of murder. In this sense Hamlet, relinquishes any thought of becoming a man like his uncle Claudius, who murdered his father in cold blood.

Freud's analysis is also rich with a healthy dose of Shakespeare fan service and facts which may help the reader understand the play better. Freud believes that both Macbeth and Hamlet take heavy inspiration in the death of his father and his 11 year old son Hamnet, both written shortly after said events. Now if you wouldn't be alone if you think that it is no mere coincidence that Hamlet and Hamnet sound strikingly similar. Both Freud and myself belief that his son's death played a pivotal role in the development of the play and the significance of Hamlet trying to avenge his father. It may be that Shakespeare was trying to cope with his both his father's and his son's death by writing a play, but as Freud simply puts it, its his own interoperation.a

Samuel Who?

Ah, another philosopher I have never heard of, how delightful. This time time around its Samuel Johnson, a man whose name bears no resemblance to any type of military ordnance. However the man's name is irrelevant, as well as my familiarity with him. This my friends, is once again about Hamlet. Now, for a couple of entries, I have discussed why I find Hamlet and the eponymous character so fascinating. However little have I discussed the play's legacy in literature. Johnson's essay focuses on Hamlet's importance at a literary level while addressing the play's most important aspects

There is no denying that Hamlet has played a pivotal role in modern literature. Johnson acknowledges this legacy formed upon Shakespeare's piece is mostly due to its complexity and variety. He believes that one of the play's greatest charms is the spontaneity it has, such as characters appearing every other scene. As I read the play, I paid little to no attention to the character's entrances and exits. While I can't identify with Johnson here, I have to admit I was startled by Laertes' unexpected return following the death of his father. 

It appears Johnson, much like myself is most interested by the prince's duality. In order to accomplish his goals, Hamlet believes that the only way to hide his intentions is to deceive others through his behaviors. Through a mask of madness, the young prince 

hopes to avenge his father's death. Why madness you may ask? I wish I could answer that myself. Like Johnson I find that feigning madness is a rather useless and often cruel attempt at disguising his murderous objective. By acting like a madman Hamlet is not only making the labor of killing his uncle harder on himself but also brings forth collateral damage to those around them. With each passing scene hamlet arouses both sorrow and suffering to those close to him, such as Ophelia and Gertrude.

Johnson however seems to believe that Hamlet is not the main actor here but rather an "instrument rather than an agent". I believe that he interprets the prince as being a mere pawn who tries in vain to manipulate his surroundings into that which sees fit. If he is not in control of the situation then who is? When I read the essay I immediately associated this lack of control with destiny, silently pulling the strings behind the play's events. When I read Macbeth as part of last year's English course, it was clear that destiny was a recurring theme in the tragedy. Could this be the case with Hamlet? Johnson seems to believe so, referring to "the untimely death of Ophelia, the young the beautiful, the pious." This statement seems to draw heavily on the common interpretation of destiny, being the hidden power believed to control what will happen in the future. But was this really Shakespeare's idea, questioning once again the presence of destiny in a world driven by free will? Or is Johnson just pulling a Hamlet and over thinking the situation?

Planes and (In)action

Before reading his critical essay of Shakespeare's Hamlet, I have never previously heard of Northrop Frye. If you dropped his name in a conversation and I would have no idea the subject in question was a theorist. In my geeky mind, a military plane would come to mind upon hearing it. However I found his analysis of Hamlet to be both interesting and thought-provoking. Frye's essay focuses on the profound contrast between a person's character and their actions. However throughout the analysis he discusses whether someone's actions forever reflect who he/she is. To assess this question he uses both Hamlet and his nemesis Cladius and the relationship between their character and actions.

Many people argue that Hamlet is a play about a young man's struggle to avenge his father's death. In le man's terms, Hamlet is a story of revenge. However I believe that the play is not about the action but the events leading up to it. While reading Shakespeare's piece, it is hard no to notice how Hamlet would often begin to deliver every single thought that ran through his mind. The young prince breaks down the task he is given (killing his uncle Claudius) and ponders on how he will do it, the consequences and even hypothetical scenarios where he could accomplish it. However this is also his greatest weakness. Due to his obsession to over think the situation, Hamlet is constantly impeded to act.Claudius can be considered to be Hamlet's foil in this case. After watching Patrick Stewart delivering the king's lines in the 1996 adaptation of the play, I believed I could certainly understand the character better. The king of Denmark is haunted by guilt following his actions, much like Macbeth in the eponymous play. However while Claudius is certainly capable of acting he is incapable of thinking before doing so. In this sense both are great men with an equally great potential for doing amazing things, however they are incapable of doing so. Frye compares them to "a titanic spirit thrashing around in [a] prison." 

However I believe that Hamlet has greater potential than his uncle. The young prince's motive to act (or not to do so) centers around the fact that he believes in honor and justice not just revenge. Claudius on the other hand acts upon pouts of greed and his lust for power.As part of the text, Frye dissects what is often considered the thesis of the play: the famous "to be or not to be soliloquy." When I read the soliloquy I immediately considered life and death being the center of the discourse. While Frye does indeed discuss those topics inn his analysis, he brought forth one that I previously overlooked: freedom. When the titular character begins to ramble about suicide I would have never considered it as being a metaphor for said topic. Frye believes that the soliloquy is indeed about Hamlet pondering whether he is capable of deciding things for himself without becoming "just another ghost."