English Paper # 2. Sophocles and Shakespeare: A Comparison.

Joel Lopez

English 102

Professor Tafarella

December 6, 2013

 

Sophocles and Shakespeare: A Comparison

What makes a good tragedy? The fact that the characters have such strong emotions, a strong sense of character or the fact that someone always dies in the end? How about love does that have anything to do with a tragedy? A tragedy is considered something bad that has happened, and Sophocles and Shakespeare both know how to write a good tragedy. By the way they write a tragedy is magnificent from the dialogue to the plot itself. I do believe Sophocles can hold his in own especially against Shakespeare, in fact, both are equal. In order to see this comparison I shall talk about a tragedy that Sophocles wrote known as Antigone, and I shall compare it to the works of Shakespeare in great detail.

First, I shall give a brief summary of Antigone, in order to give the reader a sense of why Sophocles can hold his own against Shakespeare. Antigone starts with a conversation with two women one named Antigone, the other is Ismene. Antigone talks about giving one of her brother’s a proper burial since this brother is not going to receive one. The reason the brother does not receive such burial is the fact that he betrayed his own city during a war. Ismene tries to convice Antigone not to go through her plan since giving a traitor a burial is punishable by law. Either way Antigone goes with her plan and I foreshadowed that Antigone might die in the end of the play. Going on to the next scene a named Creon receives bad new from sentry stating that a body has being stolen. The body stolen was the body of the brother of Antigone, which if you can predict was Antigone’s plan to give her brother a proper burial. In the next scene Creon confronts Antigone, his existential situation is to tell her the penalty of her actions. Antigone does not deny the fact of what she has done (which was give her brother a proper burial). Creon has a word with his son Haemon during the scene. Haemon apparently does not like what Creon wants to do to Antigone which is ironic dealing with the fact that Haemon is the son of a ruler. Foreshadowing this event made me realize that Haemon might die in the end. Moving on to the next scene,  Creon has a word with Teiresias a prophet. Teiresias gives Creon a terrible prophecy that depicts death in the future. Now, moving to the next scene (which was the end of the play of Antigone) Creon receives a terrible message that tells him Haemon is dead and that it was his hand in which he died by. Also, the queen died the wife of Creon and the mother of Haemon which her name was Megareus. The reason that Haemon committed suicide was because of his father who’s actions were not rigthoues while Megareus was because of her son’s death that she took her own life. Thus, it was Creon’s fault for the death of many people including Antigone.

Now, that I gave a summary of Antigone I shall compare it to some of the works Shakespeare in this case how both use words to capture the audience’s attention. Now, Antigone each sentence they say has such strong emotions comparing many things with one another. One of the lines capture my attention and it goes like this:

“Such in my mind in the matter; never by me shall the wicked man have precedence in honor over the just.”

Such powerful words which stated that the brother of Antigone will never have a proper burial because his actions were not worthy of a proper burial. Comparing such words, Shakespeare also has a way with words. In the Othello, he uses the following line which also caught my attention:

“At this very minute an old black ram is having sex with your little white lamb. Wake up, wake up, ring a bell and wake up all the snoring citizens. If you wait too long you’ll have black grandchildren.”

This was truly great, funny yet powerful. This line of Othello stated that Othello (who was black) was sleeping the daughter of Brabantio who was white. This line depicted a lot of racism during the era of Shakespeare since it stated that if he waited to long he would have black grandchildren which of course was bad. In Antigone, another dialogue caught my eye which was when the Sentry was talking to Creon. Funny thing was that the Sentry was trying to come up with words on how to properly talk to Creon since the Sentry was inferior compared to Creon. Ironically (at least in my sense) the Sentry was as elegant with words and instead of sounding, well, educated he sounded sort of incompetent. Othello and Antigone had both a strong sense of judgement as in they always wanted justice. Just as I stated above Creon says he didn’t want Antigone’s brother to have a proper burial, that specific line was powerful stating that he did not want man have justice over the just. In Othello, same thing Othello was a man of just with words that embedded great hate towards Iago in the end. Iago was a demon (at least that is what Othello told Iago was) and Othello wanted him to pay for his treachery. Either way both Shakespeare and Sophocles  had a way with words.

Moving on from dialogue I want to go more into the aspect of tragedy, in which Shakespeare and Sophocles were very similar. First, I want to go into the similarities of both Shakespeare and Sophocles tragedies. In both tragedies, there is always a person causing the trouble for the rest of the characters. In Antigone, Antigone was the person who sparked the tragety, but Creon was the one who cause most of the people to die in the end. Antigone only wanted a proper burial for her brother, but ironcally is was her who ended having a burial of her own, thanks to Creon. Because of Creon’s actions his own son Haemon committed suicide and adding more to the irony Creon’s wife Megareus ended committing suicide because of Haemon’s suicide. So, in the end three people died because of a person’s ignorance. As for Othello, the person who caused misery and death to some of the characters was Iago. Iago was man of pure evil changing people’s minds, controlling events in such a way so that Othello can end up in misery. Because of him Othello ended up killing his wife because he thought that she slept with another man. Then when Othello figured out that his wife was still a saint and that it was Iago’s fault for whispering lies to the people he ended up taking his own life. As for Iago, he bled to death because Othello stabbed him out of rage. So, for both plays many people died because of one specific person.

Now, that we talked about the tragic part, lets talk about comedy and how Sophocles lacks the sense of it unlike Shakespeare who does have some comic relief. Sophocles was more into the tragic of play writing which was good, but Shakespeare was excellent when came to adding some comedy to his plays. In Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, Mercutio was a loving and hilarious character adding comic relief to a tragic tale. His ways of sudden outbursts and ways with words made me laugh even though Romeo and Juliet was indeed a tragic tale. As for Sophocles, he wasn’t good with adding the element of comedy into the Antigone. Antigone was much more serious than what Shakespeare composes which in my opinion is not bad, but comic relief its a good factor to have in a play even if it is a small joke or two. In Othello, humor was a bit cruel especially the line stating above which was when Iago told the father of Othello’s wife (well wife to be) that his white daughter was sleeping with a black man. Yes, its was funny in a racist sort of way, but I cannot blame them since back in Shakespeare era being black was a bad thing. Though Shakespeare had a hint of comedy in his trageties does not change the fact that Sophocles could not hold his own its just that it added a little flavor to Shakespeare plays.

Since we talked about how comedy can play in a tragic play, lets talk about how Dionysus (Chaos) and Apollo (Order) work in Sophocles and Shakespeare tragedies. Obviously, both Shakespeare and Sophocles had their fair share of Chaos since in the tragedies there is a lot of it. Now, for the characters in Antigone who were Dionysian were Antigone and Creon. The reason why Antigone was Dionysus was the fact that she was the one who tried to bury the body of a traitor and she knew that doing such act was punishable by death. In doing so, she was contempt of treason and was killed by Creon. Her death was the cause of other characters to die in the play. The protagonist Creon was also Dionysus because of his action he killed a woman who’s only goal was to give her brother a proper burial. In killing, he sort ended the life of two people he loved the most which was his son and wife. How Creon ended their life was the fact the his son Haemon did not like what his father has done and that he did not to live with a father who kills a innocent woman. So, Haemon takes his own life because of his father’s actions. Now, as for the wife of Creon she ended her life because the fact of her son’s death was too painful live on with. So, thanks to Creon’s actions innocent people ended up being hurt for it. In Shakespeare’s Othello, Iago was Dionysian because like Creon he caused the death of a couple people. Iago with his clever words and actions manipulated people to do his bedding without him lifting a finger. His plan was to take down Othello only, but instead of taking just one person down he took more. Iago chaotic actions caused Othello, himself and Othello’s wife to die in the end. Now, for the people who Apollonian in Antigone and Othello were Othello himself and Ismene (Antigone’s sister). Though these two were in different works of art they played similar roles. They both wanted to keep justice in place, Ismene wanted Antigone from burying her traitor of a brother in order to keep from being executed as a traitor. As for Othello, he was man of honor he tried to keep his men under control, he was man of valor. Chaos was everywhere in the Shakespeare and Sophocles plays, but in order to have chaos you need order to disrupt it.

Although order and chaos played a huge part in Shakespeare and Sophocles tragedies, love was also played a huge part. In Romeo and Juliet a Shakespeare tragedy, love was huge. Romeo and Juliet their love was forbidden, and because it was forbidden made them want each other even more. Their wanted to each other to the point were the slept with one another. When they were reaching to the climax of Romeo and Juliet they were going to get married and have a life. Juliet faked her death in order for everyone to think she is dead, so that she can later on wake up and go to Romeo in order  to start their life together. Romeo was supposed to obtain a letter saying that Juliet’s death is fake, but does not receive it. So, when Romeo reaches the tomb in which Juliet body was on he thought she had really died and so in order to be with her, he commits suicide. When Juliet wakes up from her fake death she sees that Romeo is dead. That death shocked her and so in order to be with her love she stabs herself and dies right next to Romeo. This proved that love had something to do with Shakespearean tragedy and now to compare such love to Sophocles tragedy Antigone. Now, in Antigone love played only a small part. When Creon’s son committed suicide because of what Creon did, Creon’s wife also committed suicide. The reason Creon’s wife committed suicide was because she dearly loved her child and this love made commit suicide in order to be with her son forever. Even though love was more of a factor in Shakespeare play than Sophocles plays, Sophocles can still hold his own.

In conclusion, Antigone was truly a great tragedy with its own sense of despair. Unlike Sophocles, Shakespeare had more taste because of his way to use love and humor in his plays. This humor added comic relief to the play and it allowed the audience to be more in tune with the play. As for love, I saw that many people died for it in the both of Shakespeare’s and Sophocles tragedies and now I know that love is truly a strong emotion that would make anyone do insane things. Though Shakespeare and Sophocles had a couple of differences, they also had similarities both of them added a tragic ending usually depicting the death of the main characters. Antigone and Othello were both plays that both had one person commit acts that led to the death of other people. The dialogue of both Antigone and Othello were very unique, each word had such a powerful sting. Chaos and Order played a huge part in Shakespeare and Sophocles plays because one character always wanted to prevent another from doing something that can cause a chaotic things from happening. One question remains.

What do people think of when they hear the word “tragedy”?

Works Cited

Adrian Del Caro, “Dionysian Classicism, or Nietzsche’s Appropriation of an Aesthetic Norm”, in Journal of the History Ideas, Vol. 50, No. 4 (Oct. – Dec, 1989), pp. 589-605 (English)

Othello. Oliver Parker. Warner Bros. December 15, 1996. DVD

Sophocles. “Antigone.”  The Bedford Introduction to Literature. Ed.

William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. Baz Luhrmann. 20th Century Fox. November 1, 1996. DVD

 

Blogging Antigone by Sophocles

Now, Antigone is a tragic drama. The drama starts off with two woman named Antigone and Ismene. They are apparently talking about their brothers who fought in battle, ironically the two brothers were in different sides of the battle, and adding more two the irony they both died by each others hand. Sadly, those who defy their own land (in this case one of the brothers) are charged with treason and cannot obtain a proper burial  which is why the conversation of Antigone and Ismene has a lot of conflict. Now, in this scenario Antigone is Dionysis because she wants to give the brother who was defying his own land a proper burial, but this will cause chaos since giving a traitor an “illegal” burial is punishable by death. As for Ismene she is trying to convince Antigone from doing such nonsense, she is trying to control Antigone from getting herself killed which is why Ismene is Apollo. Now, when seeing this conversation and knowing this was a tragic drama, I foreshadowed that Antigone is going to be captured and killed since she did not heed the words of Ismene. I do believe Ismene is an existential situation since she is trying to find words on how to convince Antigone from burying her brother. Either way words do not convince Antigone and does whatever she pleases.

Now, after the conversation with Ismene and Antigone the drama sheds light on Creon. Creon at the moment is giving a speech about the war that has happened. Creon does mention the two brothers in which Antigone and Ismene were having a conversation on (the brothers name are Eteocles and Polyneices). As Creon stated he is going to give Eteocles the proper burial while Polyneices is not. There is a line that caught my eye which was “Such is my mind in the matter; never by me shall the wicked man have precedence in honor over the just.” (Lines 226 – 228). From what I can know from this line that Polyneices is man that has betrayed their kingdom and thus he dishonor will never go above of those who loyal. In my one of my college classes we pinned this line to example of Democrats and Republicans. Now, Democrats can say that we need to give health care to people who do not have it, but Republicans will argue that health care is good and all, but that it costs way too much. After Creon is done with his speech to his people we move on to the next scene where Creon obtains news from a Sentry.

To begin, the Sentry is a existential situation, the Sentry is trying to find the right words to inform Creon about the terrible news.  Funny thing is that this Sentry is trying to talk to Creon in a proper manner which in the end does seem to fail. The Sentry tries to apologize to Creon for not delivering the news on time, stating that he does not have wings in his feet. Now since this is greek drama the gods were everything to the people of Greece. The Sentry used sort of a metaphor using the messenger of the Gods known as Hermes (who had wings on his feet) as a factor. The Sentry was Dionysus in this scenario since he is going to tell Creon some bad news and in this case Creon is Apollo.

Now, I do not want to spoil more of the drama since in the end a certain someone is killed, but Antigone is truly a good tragedy.

The Cathedral by Raymond Carver. English Paper.

Joel Lopez

Professor Tafarella

English 102

November 17, 2013

The Cathedral: A Brief Analysis

As I rode in the bus waiting to arrive at my destination, I began to think about how humans thought of one another. We usually keep inhumane thoughts to ourselves in order to not hurt other people’s feelings. When I thought about this, suddenly at a stop where there was a man in a wheelchair. At that moment the bus was overcrowded with every seat and room taken up by a person. In this crowd, I was drawn to specific person whose remarks caught my attention. If remembered correctly he said these words, “I’m not giving my seat to that man, I don’t care if he’s crippled I’m not getting up.” The bus driver had to tell this handicapped man that the bus was full and he could not let anyone else in. After that scene we arrived at my destination. As I left the bus, there was one thing in my mind. Why did that person call that handicapped man crippled?

Knowing this, a specific story came into mind, oh yes, the short story Cathedral by the author Carver. I can reflect my person experience on to this short story because of the way humans can make certain assumptions of a person without really know them (In this case a man insulting a handicapped man with the word crippled). After describing the story in a very detailed summary, I will give a complete analysis in which I will describe certain things such as the narrator and other scenarios of the story.

To begin I shall give a brief summary of the story. The setting of the story takes place  in a house, probably in the city of Seattle since in paragraph 2, it explains a flashback of a hot summer in Seattle. The narrator’s persona is a husband who is not too fond of a blind man who is a friend of his wife. The main characters are the husband and wife who are expecting a visit from a blind man. In the exposition of the story, the wife talks about a blind man who she has met and is very fond of him. She explains to her spouse that the same blind man is going to visit them in a few hours. As the wife explains who the blind man is, the husband seems to dislike the man by making sarcastic remarks about the blind man. Throughout the story the characters have dinner, they drink a little and by the looks of it they smoked marijuana. Towards the end the blind man tells the husband to close his eyes and asks him what does he see. The husband then states that he knows he is in his house, but that he felt he wasn’t inside of anything. The story ends with the husband saying, “Its really something.” (Carver 44)

First I want to talk about the husband and his feelings towards the blind man. The narrator was a very sarcastic man and he seems to dislike blind men, almost racist like.  The narrator or better known as the husband, tends to misperceive the “landscape” meaning that he is analyzing this blind man by how other people and things such as media perceive blind men. For instance this following line explains how he sees blind men:

My  idea of blindness came from the movies. In the movies, the blind moved very slowly and never laughed. Sometimes they were led by seeing-eye dogs. (Carver 32)

Now, he hasn’t even seen the blind man and yet he is making assumptions based on the fact of a movie he has watched. The husband was very critical towards this blind man and like I said made many baseless assumptions. For example, when the wife told about the blind man’s wife name (the wife of the blind mind is deceased which is why the blind is visiting because the wife felt sorry for him) which was Beulah, he stated that it was a colored woman’s name in which he asked his wife, “Was his wife negro?” (Carver 34).  The assumption made realize that racism was still big back in the 1980’s and that husband really looks down on this blind man. In the exposition of the story, the husband’s existential situation is that he is currently watching TV waiting to see this blind man that his wife is so excited to see even though he seems to dislike the idea of the blind man visiting. Now when the blind man arrives at the house, the husband makes fun of the blind man’s beard. Why did he make fun of the blind man’s beard? Is  it because that he is blind he cannot shave his beard without first looking at himself in the mirror? Anyways the husband begins to think on which side of the train the blind man sat on as he came to their house since when coming from New York you sit on the left hand of the train. When the wife asks how the blind man’s ride was, the husband asks which side of the train he came on. Now the tone of the question was obviously sarcastic since the blind man cannot see what part of train he sat on. As the story reached is climax, the husband begins to see the blind man in a new sort of way. They begin to seem to get along in which the resolution the husband sees that been blind is not all that is cut out to be.

Now, that we I talked about how the husband felt towards the blind man, lets talk about the theme of the story. The theme of the story to me is that we should not judge people based on bias information, that not all people are the same. Meaning that this blind man is not the same as another blind man on TV or in any other place. The husband judged this poor blind man even though he has not arrived to his house because his Weltanshauung(worldview) causes him to dislike the blind men, but after having a long conversation they begin to sort of like bond towards the end. Eventually he comes to a point of self-realization or anagnorisis (Aristotle) when the blind man tells him to close his eyes. When he closed his eyes, he knew how the blind man felt to the point in which he became the blind man himself which goes to show that in order to understand a person you must walk in their shoes.

Since we talked about the theme of the story, lets talk about the irony in the story which there is a lot considering how the husband treated this blind badly in the beginning of the story.  There are two types of irony used in the story which are situational and verbal (Preminger). First lets talk about some verbal irony in the story. As I mentioned before the husband’s asks a question concerning where the blind man sat in. The husband thinks to himself that people who come from New York ride on the  left side. The blind man said he rode on the right side which is ironic considering that the blind man knew where he was sitting even though to the husband he thought that because he was blind he would of sat on the wrong yet in this scenario he sat on the wrong side because he did not know the left side was for people coming from New York. Another verbal irony is when the husband asks if the blind man’s wife was black because her name was Beulah (Carver 36). The irony is that the blind man cannot see how the wife looks like and that he could not tell the wife of the narrator how she looked and so the narrator is making fun of the blind man for him not knowing how his wife looked like. Now, for some situational irony. There was an situational irony where the blind man asks the husband to describe the Cathedral’s and that he felt he was threatened by the blind man. The irony is that knows the husband knows that the blind man has an unfair advantage because he is blind yet why does he feel “threatened”. The whole story is technically a situational irony since the husband had this thought about how blind men were and that this blind man that came to his house was not how he predicted at all.

Irony was one of the contributors of the story, but what also caught my eye was how the story was narrated. About a huge chunk of the story was narrated by  the husband’s thoughts with some dialogue and past memories. What interest me is how the use of the husband’s thoughts shows the personality of the husband which is a sarcastic man.  Its funny how the husband is going through this whole visit of the blind man thinking about what to say or how to react to the current situation he is in otherwise know as substantial situation. His thoughts revolve around this blind man, how he looks and his life. Thoughts that are rather ironic or just plain mean. When he thought of how sad it was that the blind man’s wife died because the wife knows that the blind man would never know how she looked, the husband showed some empathy, but then afterwards he says “Pathetic” which shows how mean he is towards the blind man and his disgust towards him. His thoughts actually not only showed disgust toward the blind man, but how it showed how the husband maybe sort of jealous of the blind man. How did he show jealousy? Well in page 33 , 6th paragraph, he remembers how the blind man touched the face  of his wife. Now, how would you think the husband felt when the blind man felt the face of his wife? Well, obviously furious which me realize why the husband could detests the blind man other than the reason he is blind. When I think about, it feels like the husband is living outside of the real world, I mean he is there with this blind men, but he is so deep in thought like he is in the absurd. I mean we are in his mind, he is narrating the story with his thoughts, but how do we know he is actually there or better yet how do we he is even conscious of what he is doing or saying? As for the dialogue which was a small part of the short story, the thing that made realize that this man, this husband has shown some sort of epiphany was when closed his eyes and said “its really something”. While his eyes were closed he thought of how he depicted the blind man felt, that he was there, but in fact it felt like he was inside of nothing. My guess is that the blind man knew how the husband felt towards him which is why he told him to close his eyes and see how he “saw” the world with his own eyes.

Now, that I analyzed how the story was narrated and I shall I talk about who was Apollonian and who was Dionysian. The concept is that those who are Apollonian they are more toward logical and reasonable thinkers while those who are Dionysian they are more of those who go by emotions and instincts themselves. In this case, the husband was more towards Dionysian and the blind man was more towards Apollonian. First, lets take a look on why the husband was Dionysian. Well for starters his emotions played a large part of the story because he felt hate or dislike towards the blind man. He didn’t like the idea of him coming, his wife did, but he couldn’t wrap the idea of him coming. He was irrational sort of like drunk since Dionysus was the goddess of wine because this blind man was good person, I mean his wife told him how her husband was and so the blind man was very eager to meet the husband. The husband let his emotions control him to far so he could not see the reason of why he should like this blind man, but somehow he tends to like the blind man as the story starts to get to the end. Eventually he liked this blind man, he understood how he felt being blind which is the husband was Dionysus because he lost in his own conflicting emotions. As for the blind man, he seemed more like Apollo for one reason. The reason is when he told the husband to close his eyes. This blind man seemed to have reasonable thinking, he knew that if the husband closed his eyes he would have some sort of anagorisis (epiphany) which in fact the husband have. Not only that, but I guess since the man was blind he “saw” the world in a different way in a more reasonable way in a more logical way. These two since they where completely different from one another they did have some conflict, but in the end they enjoyed each others company.

In conclusion, the story was indeed very enjoyable, the fact that how the husband went through this metamorphosis to a man who disliked blind men to a man who got along with one was truly inspiring. The wife was also a contributor to the story since without her we don’t know who the blind man was. Everyone should this read this story because of the way is told and because of its strong theme which is you can’t judge a book by its cover. That is just because a person is blind or disabled in anyway or better yet just because a person is different doesn’t give you the right to make fun of them or judge them. I talked about the story in great detail from explaining how the narrator was, to what context the story had and like I said before the theme of this short story. In that bus, that rode would it have been different if the bus was half empty? If it was, would that man have gotten up in order give his seat in order to make room for the man who was handicapped? There is only one question that still roams my mind which is this:

Can we all just learn to get along?

Works Cited

Adrian Del Caro, “Dionysian Classicism, or Nietzsche’s Appropriation of an Aesthetic Norm”, in Journal of the History Ideas, Vol. 50, No. 4 (Oct. – Dec, 1989), pp. 589-605 (English)

Carver, Raymond. “Cathedral.” The Bedford Introduction to Literature. Ed.

Charles David, “Aristotle.” The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Ed.

Preminger, A. & Brogan, The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, MJF Books, 1993, pp. 633-535

Blogging Ernest Hemingway’s Hills Like White Elephants

This story is starts in Barcelona, Spain where a man and woman are having a conversation next to a train station. It appears later on that the conversation is about the woman having an abortion. Now back then abortion was an illegal act and is punishable for prison. The tone of the story starts of mellow, but eventually tends to become darker throughout the story. The hills seem to be the motif since the female character keeps repeating how they look like white elephants.

In the exposition of the story, it has a lot of imagery, depicting beautiful hillsides and the train station while the sun shines brightly above. Now as I progressed to the story an american and a woman are speaking while having some beer. A metaphor is used when the girl compares the hills to white elephants. In most lines certain words are constantly being repeated such as water or beer. These word will become meaningless which is called semantic satiation (which is a word that is constantly being repeated and is losing all meaning). Now as the story progresses there is a sudden change in mood going from a friendly conversation to a serious debate. Funny thing is that when the woman and man talk about aborting the child they have conceived, the woman goes back to watching the peaceful scenery even though they are talking about something serious. This is what we call “the absurd” since the woman is talking about serious matters then she goes back to talk about the scenery. It seems sort of ironic when the female says she wants thing to go back to the way they were yet she does not want to give up the baby. As I progressed more into the story the characters became more emotional, there was a lot of tension, a lot of conflict. They kept saying that they will never get back the world they had, that once “they” take it away, you can’t ever have it back. Who is they? Do they mean that the child they are going to have is going to ruin there lives? There is more irony as I progress more into the story since the woman tells the man she will do anything for him even though she does not want to go through the abortion. In the end of the story there many interpretation  of it. One interpretation is that they have arrived to the destination they were going to. The other interpretation is that the man is leaving and the woman is staying in Barcelona or the other way around.

Now in this story, I believe the woman is Dionysus since she tends to have many conflicting opinions of whether or not to abort the child she is bearing (not only that but she drinks a lot in the story). While the man is Apollo since he’s trying to convince her that abortion is way to go. The story was very interesting, in fact I did enjoyed the conflict between these two people.

Blogging James Baldwin’s Sonny’s Blues

This story is about man who’s brother has gone to jail and how he sees the hardship’s of his brother life. The story has a dark tone with a bit of irony since they keep saying how the protagonist’s brother is a good person even though he does heroine and went to jail. Music is the motif of the story and usually the music is depressing. Just to mention this blog is how I examined the story as it progressed during my first reading of it.

In the first paragraph of this short story which is actually not the exposition, but the en medias res, I saw some foreshadowing. The protaganist is astonished on what the newspaper said stating he had to read the news story a couple of times and he was focused on a specific name. This foretold that this specific person whom the protagonist was reading about was going to be the main topic of this story and that the protagonist will eventually confront this person.

On the second the paragraph, the protagonist mentions the names of person whom he was reading about (Sonny) and that he mentions “he became real to me again”. “What does he mean he became “real”? Is this Sonny related to him somehow? Or probably Sonny is a person whom the protagonist has forgotten, but now that he has appeared the protagonist remembers who Sonny is? Which is why he said “he became real to me”. Also, in this paragraph, there is a metaphor comparing a block of ice inside the protagonist’s stomach to his conflicting emotions. The protagonist is still uncertain to why Sonny is in the newspaper or by what Sonny has done.

As I progressed through the story the protagonist begins to give more detailed information about Sonny, which in fact is his brother. This make me believe that the person narrating the story is the brother of Sonny who’s persona is a high school teacher as explained in paragraph 4 of the story. The protagonist’s prospective of the world is dark, depressing, very negative. Why negative? Well in paragraph 5, the protagonist talks about how the laughs of children (in this case the high school students) seem fake, lifeless. He explains that those laughs sounded like his brother’s laughs since he was thinking about him at the time. I begin to wonder why were his brother’s laugh lifeless, “disenchanted”? Was it because his brother did heroine (which is explained in paragraph 4)? Did the protagonist think ill of his brother?

After school he sees a friend of Sonny and they both walk to the station talking about Sonny. It is later revealed, that Sonny is in jail since in paragraph 35 and 36 since Sonny’s friend states “they’ll eventually let him out”. Soon after the protagonist (Sonny’s brother) begins to write letters to Sonny.

The protagonist states that he wrote his first letter after the death of his child. Why did he write the letter after the death of a person he loved? Does death remind him of Sonny? If so, why? Towards the ending of the story, the protagonist mentions the cup of trembling which is a part in the bible in the book of Jessiah. Thus, ends this short story.

Blogging Robert Frost’s Home Burial

I have read the poem Home Burial by Robert Frost which was quite enjoyable. The poem is about 2 pages long and it is about a discussion between a mother and a father and their diseased child. His poem is probably reflecting on his time when children were dying of diseases. The tone of the poem is dark with a touch of anger between the couple.

To summarize this poem it is about a couple whose child is apparently dead and the mother is trying to leave the house in order to get away from the memory of her child’s death, but the husband does not want her to leave.

Now I took some lines of the poem and tried to interpret them in my own way. In lines 71 – 88, the wife is shouting to the husband about him digging a grave for the child they have lost, which in my understanding is the reason why the wife wants to leave the house. In lines 25 -28, the Frost’s uses metaphors in order to describe a bedroom with a coffin and the slabs of stone with tombstones on top of a hill. Which I would think is where the dead child is buried at. In lines 35 and 70 the husband repeats the statement of why can’t a man speak of his own child that is dead? I wonder does the husband feel regret about his deceased child? Is that why he repeats it? The wife does give a respond to this statement in line 71 where she says that the reason she doesn’t want the husband to talk about the child’s death is because “he doesn’t know how to speak”. Does she mean that the husband talks ill about the dead child? Well in the next line, she states that if he had any feelings the husband wouldn’t of dug his own child’s grave. That is probably why she does not want the husband to talk about their dead child. The father is sad about their child, but he does not want to grief about it which is stated in lines 106 and 107. Another reason why the wife wants to leave is because of the husband’s lack of emotion towards the dead child. In lines 112 and 113 where she says “you think the talk is all.” which makes me believe, that the husband believes with a little talk the memory of their deceased child will be gone.

Now, I do think there could be another way of interpreting the poem. What happens if its not a dead child they are talking about rather than their love is actually the thing dying? I mean when she says in lines 112 and 113 “you think the talk is all” she is probably stating that the husband is not listening to her, to her conflicting emotions which is why she wants to leave the house, but the husband does not want her to leave. Also in line 109 it states, “The heart’s gone out of it? Does the husband mean the love has left? Maybe the reason she wants to leave is because her husband is abusive or aggressive since in line 116 he states that if she leaves he will find her and bring back by force.

Whether or not Frost intended to be about a couple whose child has died or a couple who’s love is dying the poem is truly worth reading and it did peak my interest.