Blood Wedding- Journal #3

Creative
Prompt: Letters the characters might have written.

Leonardo,

Why do you do this? Why do you tempt, always drawing me in?
I am prepared for life with another! Yet I cannot help but love you.
Leave, leave while you still can. If you stay, death will become us both. You will die literally, and my heart will die with you. If you stay what fated decisions will we make? Decisions that will ruin us both.
This is why you must leave.
I cannot be without you, but I must. I really do care for the bridegroom. He is my future, we will be happy together, with children and land.

But you! You are dark, you are dangerous. You will ruin both our lives. I cannot resist you, no matter how much I want to. No matter how much I care for the Bridegroom, you will always be my past and my future. Hopefully never my present. But how can that be if you stay? If you stay you will always be my present. I cannot resist.

I am to be wed to the bridegroom, yet you do not leave! You ride by my house and cause destruction!

Bride.

Blood Wedding- Journal #2

Literary Topics
Prompt: Themes and ideas

In Blood Wedding, Lorca uses the repetition, symbolism and imagery of the knife to carry one of his main ideas. The knife represents death, more than death it represents loss. As a general rule, Mother is the only person who refers to the knife. This is appropriate, and helps to convey the symbol because Mother has lost the most, and continues to do so throughout the play. She lost her husband and her son, and by the end of the play, she looses another son. The knife evolves to represent unfair loss, to represent something being taken from an individual. When Mother says, "I will sleep at last, no longer terrified of guns of knives." (Lorca 100), it is after Bridegroom dies. It shows that she no longer fears knives because she no longer has anything to lose. This suggests two themes. Firstly, that once an individual is alone, with no family, their existence is meaningless. The second idea portrayed is death is the only real way to lose an individual. This is because of the contrast of Mother's reactions when she simply thought that Bridegroom was getting married. He would be taken from her, but he would not be dead. She grieves him more when he is alive than when he is dead. That is what creates the second theme.

Blood Wedding- Journal #1

Comparison
Prompt: A dramatist often creates a gap between what the audience knows and what the characters know. With reference to at least two plays, discuss how and to what effect dramatists have used this technique.

In Blood Wedding, the death of Bridegroom's father and brother is a mystery. The only information given is that they were murdered, and also it was done by a member of the Felix family. By doing so, Lorca creates the character Leonardo with mystery and suspicion. This makes the reader more suspicious of Leonardo and makes them have more pity for Bridegroom and Mother. It also makes the reader suspicious of Bride and Father for their previous attachment to Leonardo. By creating these feelings, Lorca is controlling the tragedy aspect of the play, he is making the reader emotionally tied to one or more of the characters, and at the end of the play he will let them down. This shows the skill Lorca has at writing plays and changes the way I will be reading his play.
In The Wild Duck, the Ekdal's situation is shrouded in mystery. It creates a sense of mistrust and curiosity. By not informing the reader of all that has occurred it makes them more likely to trust Gregers and Old Werle. The effect of doing so is incredibly similar to that of the effect in Blood Wedding. It makes the reader more tied to a particular character, effectively making that specific play a tragedy. The reader's emotional fall makes up for the lack of a character losing face that was traditionally found in Greek tragedies.

The Wild Duck- Journal #5

Comparison
Prompt: To what extent have you found it possible, in your consideration of literary works, to separate the individual from his or her public role?

In The Wild Duck, all of Ibsen's characters come with a distinct placement in their society and household. Due to this, it makes it extremely difficult to look beyond their given role in their society. The characters that make this most pronounced are Gregers and Relling. For Gregers, at first and throughout almost the entire book I like him. I like him because of his social class mainly, for everything he is portrayed to be. His wealth (which conotates other qualities such has manners and knowledge), his continued friendship with Hjalmer and so on. But by the end of the play, I think of Gregers has an idiot! The way he tries to interfere with Hjalmer and Gina, and the joy he finds in thinking that they will be closer than ever before is dead wrong. One of the last lines he says, in reference to Hedvig is, "Hedvig did not die in vain. Did you notice how grief freed the greatness in him" (Ibsen 216). Gregers is horrible, he is more than the surface level optimism, he sees the death has a good thing because it assists his friend's greatness! The other character something similar to this happens to is Relling. Relling's public life is portrayed poorly by Hjalmer, Relling is said to be a, "wild pair, those fellows[Relling and Molvik]. They go out on the town evenings," (Ibsen 154). Relling is described has a drunk party-goer. Throughout the majority of the play, I held a dislike for him because of the way Gina and Hjalmer describe and react to him. However, by the end of the play he is my favorite character, the one that is the most knowledgeable and respected. By doing this, Ibsen shows how a person's social standing in society defines the opinions others have of them.
Similarly, in Oedipus the King, Sophocles uses the townspeople's respect for Oedipus to briefly outshine his tragic flaws. "He [Oedipus] was the joy of Thebes! / Never will I convict my king, never in my heart" (Sophocles 187). The Oedipus the citizens of Thebes love and respect is not an accurate portrayal of who Oedipus is nor of his values and limitations. However, by the end of the play, the audience's opinion of the king changes from one of merit to almost anger. I found myself rather angry at Oedipus for appearing to be one thing while truly containing many many flaws that negatively affect all he is. Sophocles uses this to show how before making judgements on an individual, look at their actions currently, more than what people say or previous choices. Ibsen and Sophocles both show the opinion on the characters changing from public to private, but their warnings or main ideas are separate. Ibsen discusses the social level, while Sophocles deals more with pre-conceived notions. Sophocles is more critical while Ibsen remains speculative.

The Wild Duck- Journal #4

Creative
Prompt: Write an unheard conversation between characters.

(On a park path, two men are walking. It is winter time, and their appears to be a small layer of the first snowfall. The men are both wearing heavy, outdoor coats. Gregers' clothing is obviously of higher quality. Gregers has an apprehensive look on his face.)
(After a brief silence).
GREGERS: There was a reason I asked you to go on a walk...
HJALMER: I gathered has much.
GREGERS: During my brief return to this city, I've uncovered something about the truth of your marriage.
HJALMER: And? I have a disturbed feeling about this.
GREGERS: You must be warned- I mean no harm by unveiling this piece of information.... I would just like to see a true, ideal marriage.
HJALMER: Out with it! Whatever information you seem determined to share, do it now.
GREGERS: I have become aware that your wife, Gina, she had an affair with my father before you two married. This has become clear to me through the absence of detail regarding you, and the way he looks after her.
HJALMER: No! That cannot be true, not my Gina, not the person who always does all sorts of things for me.
GREGERS: But think about the facts, think about how you met, about the fact that she does look after you. It shows a remorseful attitude.
HJALMER(thoughtfully): Perhaps you are right Gregers, perhaps she has kept this most horrid secret.
GREGERS: More than perhaps! Think about the opportunity this gives you! You have the chance to be joyful with the truth, and the ability to forgive her for previous sins! A true marriage, one never seen before....
HJALMER: Well, I do trust you, and you know your father better than most... It has dawned on me that you are right! But how to confront her on this crime? Ahh, I will give her the chance to own to it, or deny it...
You are giving me an opportunity, Gregers! The chance to free myself from this doubtful woman. Although, how am I to work on my invention when all my joy is gone from me?
GREGERS: Hardly! You will be able to grow and fall more in love with all this in the air, it will all be good, ideal, when you are done!
(The two men walk off stage and 'return' to Hjalmer's apartment)

The Wild Duck- Journal #3

Literary Topics
Prompt: Stylistic Techniques (imagery, figurative language, sensory detail, symbolism).

The biggest and most obvious symbol found in The Wild Duck, is the wild duck herself. The symbolism of the duck covers more than one idea, but the one that is more interesting personally is the idea of separation created by the duck. All of the characters are amazed by her, yet she is the only one of her kind and out of her natural habitat. Ibsen talks excessively of social classes, and the wild duck is symbolized has the top of her class, the biggest and the best. "The wild duck rules supreme" (Ibsen, 164). It is very clear who the duck represents in real life- the upper class. People like the Werle's or any one in attendance at the party in Act One. After it is established that the duck is superior, the loneliness of the bird is displayed. "And then it's so sad for her; the poor thing has no one to turn to" (Ibsen, 164). The bird is away from her habitat and her fellow wild ducks, because of that, the bird must feel alone and out of place. This shows what Ibsen is trying to portray about the upper class- that once you make it to the top, you are alone. The individual that is the best is always admired, but only admired. No person can be their equal sense they are the best. It also shows what happens to people who are removed from their accepted place in the world. If somebody is taken away from all they ever knew, that person will have a lonely existence indeed. They will only survive if they are able to adapt, just like how the wild duck adapted.

The Wild Duck- Journal #2

Literary Topics
Prompt: Setting: This included cultural as well as geographical and historical setting. What effect does the setting have on the story, character, theme?

In The Wild Duck, Ibsen places the characters in two main specific locations. In Act 1, the story occurs in an ornate, wealthy man's house. The entire atmosphere is just luxurious and sophisticated- upper class basically. In Act 2, the setting changes from Werle's house to Hjalmer's home. The atmosphere is a little shabby, and the reader gets the effect that they are upon hard times financialy. This is mostly because of the fact that where they live is also where they work, has well has Gina's unhappiness with what they spent on food. By placing these two conflicting places right next to each other, it shows something about the importance of social position, and how silly the wealthy are. At Werle's house, all of the people were decadent and rather silly with the things that concerned them. However, at Hjalmer's the conversation was more serious and the reader witnessed the struggles that family carried. Ibsen is trying to show how ignorant and silly the upper class can be, and more often than not, is. It highlights the difference a social class can make and Ibsen shows how people change based on their income level.

The Wild Duck- Journal #1

Comparison
Prompt: "What is drama but life with the dull bits cut out?" To what extenet do you find this statement applicable in at least two plays you have studied?

This statement is only applicable to certain plays, it is not universal. In Oedipus the King, the story line is not constantly full and exciting nor is it easily applicable to life. The story line is completley irrational and far fetched. While the ideas are somewhat able to be relevant to life, at the same time they seem to only apply to certain people. The ideas are not universal, and most of them do not choralate to the certain personalities. In order for the play's ideas to be applicable to life, they must be plausible for an individual's life. Some people do not have the same characterstics of Oedipus, and therefore the faults and lessons on those faults do not apply. However in The Wild Duck, the events are, so far, plausible and very applicable to life. It is about a family that is flawed, and that appears to be what it is not. That is something that fits in with many people's real situation. Especially the facades people put on for those around them. The family in the play are completley at odds, yet they still maintain a facade of family ties. Additionaly, the plot and characters have been thus far extremely scandalous. The phrase "What is drama but life with the dull bits cut out" is very assuming and not accurate of applicable to all plays for all people. It is not specific enough to what it's goal audience is and therefore is proved to be false many times over.

Oedipus the King- Journal #4

Comparison
Prompt: Compare how writers in your study have explored the themes of judgment and punishment, or disguise and deciet, or love and friendship, and with what effect.

Jugment and punisment is brought to the reader's attention almost immediatly from the beginning of the book. Oedipus is very quick to publicly condemn and judge the killer of Lauis, without knowing him or any of the particulars. He also judges and attempts to punish Creon for supposedly trying to take over the power. By judging these people quickly and harshly, it brings about Oedipus' own demise at the end of the play. When Oedipus realizes his errors, he forces upon himself the same punishment he promised at the start of the play. Through this, Sophocles shows the idea of judgment, and how judging somebody too quickly can bring trouble upon the individual. Similarly, in The Stranger, Camus portrays the idea of judgment and punishment through the actions and reactions created by Meursault. During the trial, Meursault is judged based on his actions in regard to his mother. It is safe to assume, based on the opinion of Meursault's lawyer, that if Meursault had been a little more compassionent and respectful to his mother, that he would not of been judged so harshly and therefore punished harshly. Camus is portraying that people judge and punish those who do not fit in with their accepted view of what is right. Both authors show judgement and punishment has inevitable, but Sophocles shows it in an internal way while Camus uses external judgement to show his idea.

Oedipus the King- Journal #3

Creative
Prompt: Letters the characters might have written.

Shepherd,
There was an oracle that told Laius that his son would kill him. This baby is my son, and therefore is Laius' son has well. Because of this prophecy, I cannot live with this baby. I cannot stand to live in the fear of this child. For he will not always be a baby and one day he will be a man- a man capable of killing Laius and I. In order to protect my husband and king, please take this boy far away and kill him. Do this not only because I have asked you to, but also because of the duty you have to protect your king has a citizen of Thebes. I do not care how you take care of this situation, I only ask three things. Firstly, do not tell anyone of this letter, or of the child. Secondly, do not try to contact me about this situation, and do not tell me any particulars. Thirdly, make haste and do exactly has this letter says, do not take compassion on this child, he will be the death of Thebes if you take pity on him.
Jocasta