Tom = Bartleby?

"You smoke too much.  A pack a day at fifteen cents a pack.  How much would that amount to in a month?  Thirty times fifteen is how much, Tom?  Figure it out and you will be astounded at what you could save.  Enough to give you a night-school course in accounting at Washington U!  Just think what a wonderful thing that would be for you, Son!" Scene 5, page 1255.

 Oh Amanda, where do I even start to describe you?  Oh wait, that's easy- hypocrite.  I know you implied elsewhere in this play (though I can't seem to find it now) that you wanted Tom to work more because otherwise you can't have nice things. See Amanda, you try to control your grown son's every movement, yet you allow your daughter to walk around all day, every day and have no clue about the situation?  You steal a sex book from your son, yet you beg him to find a gentleman caller for your daughter?

Dear Amanda, I am sure that your intentions are at the best place, but I think you may want to prioritize which sibling you treat better.  If Laura were to leave the house and run away from you, she would get sick and turn back.  Not to mention that you wouldn't lose any of your beloved income if she left you.  Seriously Amanda, not only does Tom clearly consist of your ex's blood, but he is your lone source of income.  If When Tom leaves you, he ain't coming back for you honey.  I suggest you play by his rules because he has warned you that people want him dead (was that sarcasm?) <-- link there!


Sorry, my font seemed to have messed up there.

Come on Amanda, this ain't the Amanda Show!

I luv yu like a sista!

"I wish that you were my sister.  I'd teach you to have some confidence in yourself.  The different people are not like other people, but being different is nothing to be ashamed of.  Because other people are not such wonderful people" Scene 7, page 1283.

This blog is in response to question number nine.

Amanda asked Tom to find Laura a gentleman caller so that she would be happy and live a little.  What did Tom do- surprising as it was?  He actually listened to his mother and found Laura a gentleman caller, but not just any.  No, he chose a co-worker who he had to known that Laura knew slightly in the past.  The fact that Jim was already going steady and that Laura had a crush on him in the past both make me feel like Tom picked Jim with a specific goal in mind.

The entire time that I read scene seven, I could not help but think about the tone that Jim was using with Laura.  When Jim was talking to Laura about her unicorn, the tone that Jim used was not that of a man trying to win a lady's heart, but rather that of a babysitter playing with dolls and trying to act really impressed by her collection.  Honestly, I have never felt so awkward reading a passage before now.  Congratulations.  I think that when Tom asked Jim to join his family for dinner, he had planned ahead that Jim and Laura would end up in their own room.  Here was where Jim convinced Laura that she was better than a "crippled girl."  Sometimes the best way to break open the chains trapping a person is to introduce them to their childhood idol and force them to interact.  Hearing Jim's story may have just been what Laura needed in her life.

No really- break all the glass you want!

"I don't have favorites much.  It's no tragedy, Freckles.  Glass breaks so easily.  No matter how careful you are.  The traffic jars the shelves and things fall off them" Scene 7, page 1283.

Two things I just realized while I was typing the quotes out onto this blog.

1. She has a pet name for him!  It must be true love now.
2. Jars was the verb of that sentence... it makes so much more sense than when I was trying to figure out what a "traffic jar" was.

All my illiteracy aside, I am going to be answering question six in the book about the importance behind Laura's glass menagerie and it's symbolic meaning.

If you clicked on the sound button, I am sad to inform you that this is a picture.  Ere go, the button does not work.

To Laura, the world was a menagerie.
To Amanda, the collection was a menagerie.

Laura had a different look on life because of her highly introverted personality.  Her heart was glass and her leg was a horn.  She was quick to break and even quicker to notice her slight differences from the rest of society.  It was not a tragedy that her life was shattered because she knew that "glass breaks so easily."  Even the traffic of life was able to shatter her life and make it just a shatter of pieces that society thought was correct.

So why did she react more harshly when Tom broke her collection versus when Jim broke her "favorite" unicorn?  Good question Perrine, but I have a null hypothesis to match your parameter!  You see Perrine, Tom broke shattered Laura's collection in an angry fit, where as Jim healed an otherwise distorted piece of glass.  Laura equated herself with the unicorn because of it's difference that made it stand out, but when Tom showed her there was nothing different about her, she changed her mind from the unicorn being her favorite to not having an actual favorite.

All the world's stages are made of wood.

"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players:  they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages" II.vii.32.

Hey, Mr. Costello, I found an extended metaphor!  Oh, and not only that, but it is also ironic.  It's ironic, because the character telling us that the whole world is a stage, is on a stage, where all the men and women (well, mostly men since there were never actresses in Shakespeare) were legitimately players who exited and entered.

This metaphor is one of the most famous monologues in history from what I have learned, so I have two questions:

1. Why Jaquez?
2. Why in As You Like It?

To this point in the play, Jaquez has mostly been portrayed  as a merciful person who sees the worth in everything.  He cried when a deer died, obviously he believes that everything is equal.  Before this monologue, there was talk about death and elders.  It makes sense in context that Jaquez would be the one that is honored to give this monologue about the evolution of ages.

I think it may have been in this play since it was Shakespeare's last comedy.  Not only does this monologue explore the idea of death, but it also talks about equality and importance in variety.  Shakespeare seems to make it clear that he does not want to write comedies with a bang.

Not suit for comedy central...

This is play is so obviously a romantic comedy that I feel that it definitely needs a blog post to reaffirm this well known fact.

Rosalind: "To you I give myself, for I am yours.  To you I give myself, for I am yours" V.iv.76.

 Did anyone else notice that she repeated herself?

Instead of just simply stating why this is a comedy, I have decided that I will tell you every reason that I can tell as to why this is not a tragedy.

• No one dies.  Had this been a tragedy, Oliver would have killed Orlando, Rosalind would have committed suicide having found out, and Jaquez would have accidentally fallen into a river, hitting his head on a rock and going unconscious, thereby drowning himself.  Oh, I suppose a deer dies, but animals have no souls (but that does not mean that they can't go to heaven!).
• Everyone lived happily ever after.  Had this been a tragedy, Oliver would be no longer talking and obviously sent into exile for plotting to kill his brother.  Everyone is far too happy... for now.
• No one dies.

I suppose I could say that this is a comedy because everyone got married and the fifth act was a giant party, but I will not.  This play was secretly a comedy because it was funny.

Orlando: "He is drowned in the brook: look but in, and you shall see him."

Jaquez:  "There I shall see mine own figure"  III.ii.42.

Oh, burn. Orlando got the jokes!

Everything looks more official on a clipboard... or in lists?

Since Bryan informed me the questions I was actually supposed answer were on page 1119 of the book, I am going to pick number four for the first blog.  "How is dramatic suspense created."

Oliver: "Orlando doth commend him to you both, and to that youth he calls his Rosalind he sends this bloody napkin.  Are you he?" IV.iii.63.

At this point, two things immediately went through my mind:

1. Well great, now we have a dead major character.  What could possibly happen now?
2. If this napkin has strawberries on it, then I might cry.

So now is the ultimate question that I posed to myself after this scene.  Why did Shakespeare decide to wait two pages until he tells Rosalind and the reader that Orlando was cut, but not fatally wounded?

I have two theories:

1. The first and more probable is that Oliver's demeanor on stage would have given off the impression that he was not in distress and therefore the viewer would be able to logically conclude that Orlando would not have died, but just been wounded.
2. The second and slightly less probable, but probably does have some value, is that Shakespeare enjoys having some suspense in his otherwise bland plays.  This suspense was especially nerve wracking because of the fact that the play was a comedy so the main character should not have died.

Suspense is an evil writer's best friend when writing a play or novel or "short" story.  Not only does suspense add some a new roundness to Rosalind's character, but it forces readers to make an inference based on the current situation.

Suspense keeps me on the edge of my seat.  Note:  That red thing in my book.

Another stab [in the back] at Othello - A Reflective Essay

Love is often betrayed by a higher power.  Press "Read More" to learn how this was so in Othello.

Could I post a blog in ten words?

 

Hank Green's YouTube hit "I Know (A Song in Ten Words)" pretty much sums up the logic that Othello's mind must have been spinning through while contemplating his murder on Desdemona.  Now, I don't mean to be rude in the presence of a Hank Green video, but I feel like this is in order.  This song confused me at first.  The song possesses only ten words, which are then sang very quickly to a very catchy tune, yet these ten words somehow manage to capture how I feel the Othello reaction to his situation was - confusing and lacking of any structure.

"I don't think you know what you think you know, baby,
But baby don't you think that I know what I know maybe."

Now, I'm not trying to sum up Desdemona's reactions to Othello's strange accusations in a modern English translation, but I think that this would be as close as one could get to finding one.  Not only did Desdemona know what Othello thought he knew, but she then countered what she thought Othello knew she thought he knew.  The war pitted amongst Desdemona and Othello may have ended in a physical smuggling, but this was only after they were pitted against each other in a brutal mental battle by Iago where each thought they knew what the other thought they knew, but didn't realize that they didn't really know what the other really knew.  That sentence was confusing for emphasis.


Note: The song doesn't take the whole video, so that part warrants none of your time, unless you are a tried and true Nerdfighter.



Juxtaposition.

Conspiracies of a Teenage Mind

"In personal suit to make me his Lieutenant" I.i.9.

"I hate the Moor, and it is thought abroad that 'twixt my sheets he's done my office" I.iii.366-368.

"Whether [Roderigo] kill Cassio, or Cassio him, or each do kill the other, every way makes my gain" V.i.12-14.

I am going to throw around all of the theories discussed in class or that have textual support and my own personal evil motives within Iago that I have pondered while trying to procrastinate the actual assignments or when I get bored in class religion.  Doesn't everything seem less daunting when it is bullet form?

• From line ten of the play, even I was able to figure out that Iago was angry that Othello did not choose him to be Lieutenant in his army, but instead Othello had chosen Cassio who had never seen a battle.  What many people do not realize is that Cassio and Iago actually should have undertaken a battle to the death, much like in the Roman Colosseum, but because this never happened, Iago had to undertake this outside of human knowledge.  This caused a chain reaction that Iago knew would cause him to be Lieutenant should he succeed in.  Once Iago received the distinguished title of Othello's Lieutenant, he kept going for more; ergo, this hypothesis was not fully correct.
• Iago thought that Othello had sexual relations with Emilia, so, in accordance to the Mosaic Law, Iago had to make Othello think that Cassio had sexual relations with Desdemona.  If an eye for an eye makes the world go blind, then a cheater for a cheater makes people have trust issues, so it would seem at least.  However, even after Iago learned that Othello and Emilia were never betwixt the sheets, Iago still continued to scheme against them.
• Late in the play, Iago reveals that he needs either Cassio or Roderigo dead, though it would be better to have both.  If Cassio lives, then the affair between Cassio and Desdemona would surely be proven false, not to mention Iago looks ugly compared to Cassio.  In addition, if Roderigo lives, then Iago would actually have to pay back all of the money that Roderigo paid him.  I still struggle with identifying irony, but I feel like paying for your own death fulfills the definition.
• By the time Iago learned any of these to be false, his plan was in to far.  What would he do?  Just walk up to Othello and say, "Hey, so you know how I said that Desdemona is a lying, unfaithful whore?  Yeah, I was just kidding."
• Aliens secretly... okay, that probably did not happen.

 Now, when compared with Othello's motivation behind his murdering Desdemona, I think that any of these very reasonable and well thought out and justified reasons would trump Othello's reasoning behind the murder.

• She is cheating on me so she must die.

I must admit, I feel like a much better story would have been the logic behind Emilia in marrying Iago.

P.S. I drew this picture on paint because I don't want to go study for German.

I shant retire until I hath sayest this line!

"Nobody, I myself.  Farewell.  Commend me to my kind lord.  Oh, farewell!" V.ii.122-123.

I love those awkward moments when someone is on their death bed because you murdered them and then they still stand up for you after everything you have done for them... not.  Not only was this line uncomfortable to read, but as I expressed today in class, very unrealistic.

I will now do my best to psycho-analyze what was going through Desdemona's head in an attempt to answer the final question in the book.

The first thing that I noticed was the epistrophe of the word "farewell."  Call me crazy, but if I was dying in front of my best friend as was Desdemona, I probably wouldn't want my final words to them to be "See you later."  Call me crazy, but I think that people near death may not be completely sane.  For all I know, she could have very well thought that nobody did kill her.  I hear a lack of oxygen can cause you to forget things.

Dr. Oz agrees with me. http://www.drz.org/asp/conditions/oxygen_deficiency.asp

Anyways.  I realize that this post is a complete tangent to the issue at hand, so I will now show you the connection point that I am getting at.

That picture had so many references.

Anyways.  What I am getting to is the fact that Othello's whole reason for suicide seemed to be derived (more math references in case Bryan Rainey decides to read my blog) in his realization that Desdemona was innocent.  Had he never found out that Desdemona was innocent, then he would have always thought that his murder was qualified.

I assume that this was not the answer that was being looked for, so I will give you what I believe was the text book answer to this question:  Had Othello died never knowing that Desdemona was innocent, then the reader would not feel sympathy for his death.  He would have died a bloody murderer instead of guilty murderer.

P.S.  He is the murderer, not Iago.  Iago is just the evil genius.

Is it ironic that dramas use dramatic irony?

That title.  See what I did there?

Anyways.  I'm answering question 12, but I'm not going to talk about Oedipus Rex, because that is not what we read (unless I did something wrong).

"I will question Cassio of Bianca, a housewife that by selling her desires buys herself bread and clothes" IV.i.91-93.

After several times of missing this line and reading the discussion between Cassio and Iago, I finally saw that they were actually talking about Bianca, unbeknownst (first time I've used that word) to Othello.  It made me laugh.  This dramatic irony where only the reader, Iago, and to an extent, Cassio, knew who they were chatting about is what makes me love Iago.  Had dramatic irony never been used in this story, then the reader would just be like Othello trying to piece together why Desdemona was cheating on Othello instead of asking why Iago was betraying... everyone.

My dog just licked my Lit book.

The dramatic irony also created much suspense for me.  While people (not going to name names, but Grace Weisenbach in particular) seem to have this irrational hatred of Iago because he seemed to have no clear cut reason for the schemes (that will be my third blog post), I really thought I connected the most with Iago thanks to these dramatic ironies.  Not only did he basically run the story, but he even let me know what was going on when I got unbelievably confused.  The suspense that people would figure out his plan that seemed so obvious to me almost drove me insane.  I knew that basically everyone died, but I was still always scared that someone would piece everything together.

Not only did the dramatic irony help me to understand the story, but it also made me a proud member of team Iago.

Here is a hierarchy of my favorite characters.