Sheet of the Week 11/30

Hi all,
Hope you enjoyed some tasty thanksgivings.  After those pies of Anais's, I'm not sure I needed more, but I hope you all ate and rested and relaxed as much as possible.

Now for the week to come:  By Wednesday, you should read scenes 2 and 3 of Streetcar.  (Finish the last few pages of scene 1 first, obviously!)  As usual, there seemed to be strong reactions to Blanche from the very first; I'll be interested to see what you think as you move further into the play.

Remember also that your Medea synthesis questions are due on Wednesday, if you haven't turned them in already.  If you're revising your Free Choice essays, I'll give you a bit more time -- the following Thursday (Dec. 9) makes sense to me... (see why it's useful to check the blog!)

On December 8, we'll have another DST, the second for this year.  We'll talk more about it in class, but mark it on your calendars now!

Class discussion: Medea vs. Jason

Following the class discussion we have had today in class, notably pertaining to the comparison between Jason and Medea, and which of the two characters deserved our sympathy (catharsis), I would like to further give prominence to the point I was attempting to make. First of all, it is primordial to draw attention to the fact that neither Medea, nor Jason have all the faculties needed, in order for us to be able to, without refutation of any sort, to characterize them as tragic heroes. Indeed, as was previously illustrated by fellow classmates on this wonderful blog, Aristotle defines the tragic hero as an individual who is: a character of noble stature and has greatness; pre-eminently great but he/she is not perfect; the hero's downfall is partially her/his own fault and the result of free choice; the hero's mis-fortunate is not wholly deserved, the punishment exceeding the crime; increase in awareness, some gain in self-knowledge. Though noble (considering temperament, and human nature) as well as moral aptitudes, can also be taken into consideration, they do not appear in Aristotle's definition, therefore this concept needs not to be applied to our two main characters, nonetheless it is essential to note that Medea, having brutality killed her brother, in order to save Jason, but also because the act would, in the future benefit her, cannot be considered as such. However the fundamental aspect of the clash between Medea and Jason, is, that within the context of the myth, Medea was not only influenced by Aphrodite to come to Jason's aid, but, as we can see throughout the play, a subject to her passions: "it was infatuation, sheer shooting passion, that drove you to save my life" - Jason responding to Medea, during their first confrontation. This theory, therefore in some sort, renders insignificant the acts Medea undertook for Jason. Nonetheless, though she sacrificed elements of her life in order to aid Jason, her naivety has lead her to believe that Jason's actions, respectable in their society, was a complete betrayal considering what she had done for him, without regarding the fact that she too was given fame, prosperity, and security, notably from her father's wrath, for ten years. Considering she is a corrupt and disastrous witch, it was said, today in class, that Jason should have known the lengths to which Medea would have taken her anger, indeed in that case, the Princess's death is inevitable, however, the killing of Jason's sons, are a simple affirmation of her pride not wanting to accept possible defeat, but also of her emotions, or rather sudden whims, integrally reprobating her consciousness, and sense of logic. On the other hand, this analysis goes both ways, Medea should have known that, Jason being a greedy and superficial individual, would always seek for more fame, through any means necessary. After all, women were not considered as citizens of society at that time, at least not lowly ranked woman within society, though this is not a concept I agree with, it seems only natural for Medea to serve and obey her husband and accept the decisions he makes for her. However this does not pardon Jason's depth-less acts, but he is forgiven because he simply acts according to his society, this poor man, who has lost everything is clearly not at fault. Indeed, adhering to a logical analysis of the literary context, one can affirm that Medea is simply making the same mistakes as she has done previously: entering a knew environment as a refugee, a foreigner, and mysterious individual, a clash between her and her host is inevitable. However, it seems as though Medea's abilities to manipulate individuals, as seen with Creon or the Chorus, has transfered itself with the audience. In conclusion Medea is a fool, and Jason is as well, that is the correlation that exists between these two characters, nonetheless Jason is a pardoned fool, only acting like he is intended to do. In order to fully understand my point of view, one must distance himself from our contemporary views of society, but also of ones bias interpretations of the play, indeed I have observed that most female individuals in our class have sided with Medea simply because she is a woman, without clearly analyzing the obvious facts. Finally, though Medea's actions seem respectable, they are only a perfect representation of the violent, brutal, barbarian, and somewhat primitive ideologies she is influenced by. Indeed, as she herself indicates, she is controlled by her emotions, however furthering her for her reason.

Sheet of the Week 11/22

Hi all,
Just a quick note to say I've been enjoying all your posts.  What a sudden burst of activity.  Could it possibly mean.. grades are due?!

A few quick notes for the short week to come:

On Monday, we'll finish the last Medea oral and our discussion of the play.  Thanks to all for your hard work on the presentations.

On Wednesday, we'll start our next book, A Streetcar Named Desire, in class.  Please bring books with you so we can read aloud.  It's a great, strange, amazing play -- I think you'll like it and can't wait to hear you yelling, "Stelllllaaaaa!"

Modern Medea

Hola Ms. Hollow's class!

I found this oil painting by Bernard Safran when searching for different representations of Medea through time, and this one really struck me. Safran wanted to represent famous biblical or mythological figures in a time that was other than their own, to demonstrate their timeless-ness. In this case he chose Medea, and gave her the likeness of an elegant and well-off middle-aged woman of the early sixties, clutching her two fair-haired boys, plain and nonchalant in their innocence. You could picture the three living in a dark mansion somewhere in the New England countryside, seeing they're obviously wealthy, Medea wearing pearls and a somber velvet dress.

I love this representation because the more you look at it, and what it symbolizes, the more it makes you shiver. An unknowing or self-absorbed businessman could buy this work on a whim without batting an eye or researching its origin, and hang it above his tacky fireplace (stereotypes hehe) thinking it to be an elegant and retro family portrait of a respectable family. It would never occur to him that the painting he can now brag about at his dinner parties is in fact that of a jilted woman turned psychopath and about to murder her own children, and an ancient figure of death and destruction. The reason why this painting is so successful is its ambiguity. If one was unaware of the myth, it might even be charming. One could so easily imagine this woman and her children in the flesh, carrying about their seemingly ordinary lives! But there is something strangely and intensely ominous in the fiery livid sky above their heads, and the looming stare Medea holds on the viewer. She seems both proud and unsettled, fixing her stare on the viewer as though she were wordlessly holding him as a witness to her future crime. The colors are also grim, with Medea's black dress signifying impeding death and mourning, contrasted with the celestial and unearthly (divine?) light that outlines the figures.

To add to the creepiness of the piece, Safran used two local boys from his neighborhood to model, and his close friend to portray Medea. Another dark thought: infanticide is grimly still present in the world today. As this painting shows, cunning Medea could perfectly still be living among us, undetected.

The thought of a modern Medea also reminded me of the film Shutter Island, by Martin Scorsese, where Teddy Daniels' (or is it Andrew Laeddis? ;) ) wife murders their three children, turned crazy out of her husbands' neglect.

Last Post (Closing Words)

As I was reading through the posts there is one thing that i feel is quite important and has not really been touched upon enough: madness. In the dictionary, one definition of madness is the following: a state of frenzied or chaotic activity. Throughout the entire OIB program all the books, the characters and plots were all linked to madness. In general all the madness that we have seen has lead the the catastrophic downfall of the character. What I think would be interesting is to make to find a link or a pattern between all these different types of madness.
The books that come to mind when we think about madness are Frankenstein, Macbeth and Medea. If we look at these books we realize that madness is never a self inflicted condition. In fact the madness that is relevant in these books always due to an outside source. This is interesting because we think of madness as a creation of the subjects conscience.
In Macbeth the madness is clearly provoked by the witches. As they say, the seed is planted but he will decide how it will grow. Without the witches offer Macbeth would have never had any motive to become rogue and go against his own king. Frankenstein seems like a more difficult madness to determine. At first it seems that the madness is self inflicted from the start of his undertaking. Only after he completes his work do we realize that his true madness is due to Creature. His activity becomes completely incoherent with his state of mind and to a certain degree creature pushes the limits of his "hell on earth." Finally in Medea we have another interesting situation where we know that Medea's character is already a little bit chaotic. However i think that her actions before Jason were never really proof of madness but more a very strong character. He see hints of this during his confrontation with Jason but killing her children and Jason's wife a proof a chaotic activity without reason, only to return to another power thriving husband in Athens.
So we see that the madness in all of these books is not really the object of a subconscious creation but in fact of product of their own environments. This allows to show that these characters are in fact tragic heros, subject to their environments. Since madness is not controlled by the subject, it can only be additional proof the the characters tragic state.

Pecola's Subconscious and Medea

Having written a close reading of a passage of The Bluest Eye, I wanted to share my thoughts. In fact, I close read the passage where Pecola and her "other voice" talk. This passage was really interesting because it revealed a lot of different things that I had never thought about before. First of all, this passage is interesting in the way that it is not obvious which character is Pecola and which character is her subconscious. By looking at it closely, we can see that it presents both sides of Pecola herself. On one side her "new" personality that her "blue eyes" brought and on the other a more sane side. This sane side tries to bring back Pecola to the reality but in doing so, her mind is corrupted by Pecola. She finally agrees with Pecola in the sense that her blue eyes are beautiful and "bluer" than anyone else's blue eyes. This second side of her finally convinces and reassures Pecola that her actions are right and agrees with Pecola's wrong ideas she has about the world. In our close reading of Medea with Camille, we found the interesting relation with Medea in the sense that Medea too needs someone to tell her she is right. It is interesting how these two characters as they are starting to loose their mind because of a strong desire look for someone who can tell them they are right. Since they both remain alone and left out from society, they look towards themselves for this "someone". Finally I can see that as a vicious cycle in the way that when they start loosing their mind both create someone to help them reach their goals. While doing so, both characters loose grip of the real world more and more. This continues on as a vicious cycle.

The forms of otherness in Medea and Bluest Eye

Hi, I havent posted anything to the blog yet, but I thought it would be interesting, in this point in the year, to make a comparison between the different "types" of "otherness" we find in the books we read, and more explicitly, compare Pecola's otherness to Medea's otherness. Indeed, otherness doesn't need to follow certain norms, like a tragic hero. For me, Medea and Pecola's otherness is completely different. In my opinion, Pecola's otherness is much more severe and important. She is ostracized from the beginning of her life, and she is an other in her own home. Medea, on the other hand, follows much more conventional forms of otherness. She is an other because she has left her home, and lives in a foreign land.

Pecola has never known what its like to feel accepted in society. She was born an outsider not only to the white people, but to her "own" black society, to which she is supposed to inherently belong. Medea, on the other hand, is ostracized directly stemming from her actions. Let's face it, she a freak. She murders in cold blood and she's a total which. She is ostracized because she is frightening while Pecola is ostracized because she is weak: she is a woman, she is a child, and she is black.

While I do feel their forms of otherness are completely different, in my opinion, there still exists some similarities. They both wish they could be accepted and they both desire to leave their current home. In the end of the Bluest Eye, Pecola tries to "fly away", flapping her arms in a maddening desire to possess wings to leave this "foreign" place which she calls home. Medea, on the other hand, has the tools and the means by which to, literally, fly away from the scene of the murder of her children. This sort of elevation is what both characters desire to possess.

While Medea successfully manages to travel onwards to try to find a different home, Pecola is forever prisoner of her society.

A Parallel between Women and the Proletariat in A Room of Ones Own

Sooo, as much as I dislike the Woolf book, I couldn't help but notice some things within the book that caught my eye. Woolf talks about the place of women in fiction, but through what she says about didn't apply so much to women as it did to different social classes. She states that a woman needs "funds and a room of her own." This doesn't apply specifically to women, but to human beings as a whole. How can a worker, gifted with literary skills, express his or herself? The lower classes, the proletariat, are in lack of both funds and property, which Woolf states that a woman must have if she wishes to be able to write. But does this statement not also extend to the proletariat? The proletariat is, by definition, not made up of rich landowners, and thus are unable to express their creativity. However, Woolf's claim implies that this stands only for women and not for men, as in her society, women were oppressed and unable to express themselves. But is that not also the condition of the working class? Like women in this society, the workers were, and still are, unable to control their destiny, and are set to be subjugated and controlled by the upper echelons of society, just as women at that time were controlled by their husbands. Parallels between women and the proletariat keep rising up: just as women were not allowed to own land, workers were likewise not allowed or simply unable to do so, simply because they lacked the funds (once again, just as they were poor and unable to raise enough money to be able to write, women had no control over their finances, even if they did have money.) We can thus say that A Room of Ones Own is just as much a feminist statement as a socialist one.

Woolf speaks of how she is not allowed to walk on the grass at Oxbridge, and is locked out of the Library. One might think of this first as symbolizing the fact that women are not allowed the same leisure or quality of education as men are, and it is of course a very poignant feminist point, but more subliminally, it also indicates to us how the person lacking property and funds, a woman, or moreover a worker, is locked out of these same things. The worker is not allowed leisure time, he or she must constantly be productive for long hours every day of every week, and has limited if any access to learning. Thus we see once again the critique not only of the sexist characteristic of Woolf's society, but its classist characteristic as well

Medea: tragic hero

According to Aristotle, a tragic hero is a character, usually of high birth, who is neither totally good nor totally evil, and whose downfall is brought about by a tragic weakness or error in judgment. The traditional tragic hero must have an anagnorisis, catharsis, and peripeteia.
The plays begins with Medea weeping and in rage because, her husband, Jason, is divorcing her to marry the princess of Corinth. It is at this moment that Medea is determined to get revenge on Jason, and there is no turning back. Medea's tragic flaw, jealousy, will be the cause of her tragic act, the killing of Jason's new bride and her children. Her anagnorisis is before she kills her children, "why hurt them in trying to hurt their father?" (375). Medea realizes that what she is doing is wrong, but her tragic flaw overcomes her, so she needs to act upon it. Medea does experience peripeteia, reversal of roles, because we see her in the begining of the play weeping and being exiled from her home with no where to go and, in the end of the play she has a home in Athens and is in the clouds with her children (above Jason). Lastly, her catharsis moment is in the end when she is in the clouds because even though she has lost her children and her husband, she has accomplished her revenge on Jason, since he is left with nothing, whereas she has renewed herself. Therefore, I think Medea is the tragic hero in this play.

Ms. Hollow's Terminale OIB English class -- 2010-2011: Medea / notes

Ms. Hollow's Terminale OIB English class -- 2010-2011: Medea / notes

Hello everyone, here are my notes for Medea:

-Medea (p. 344) talks about her own experiences.

-Traditionally, it is the woman who travels to man's family; Medea's case.

-What does Creon ask her to do: Creon banishes Medea from Corinth because he is scared of her, fears what she might do since she even has more power, being a witch.

-Medea seemed to be controlled by her emotions in the play and in the beginning it looked like she almost has magical power to persuade; being able to get one more day in Corinth from Creon, in which she put her revenge plan to work.

-There is something about the way she is able to persuade since Creon who was determined to kick her out changed his decision a bit. One of the ways she is able to persuade ==> seducing. She emphasizes the fact that he is a father.

-Medea at first seems a little bit sincere and intelligent.

-Episode 2 ==> idea of rhetoric, Medea and Jason using their words simply to perduade.

-Discomfort with the idea that you could be persuaded with someone who has good ideas and knows how to persuade.

-Jason and Medea were accusing each other.

-Medea accuses Jason: -Monster, too good for him

-She does a recital of things.

-She uses rhetorical speaking, "I"

-"I" used to attack jason, "you" to defend herself.

-For 10 years, things seemed to go well for Medea in Corinth.

-She also uses sarcasm, there is an organization of rhetoric.

-She is driven by her passion and emotions, no logic.

-Medea always "I". Jason "you".

-If what Jason says is believed, than it is plausible

-Jason starts distancing himself from the problem, disowning his sons.

-The children went away weeping because they're sad, don't know what's happening, Medea upset.

-Chorus are witnesses, not characters.

-Medea confused in the passage when she tries to decide whether to kill her children or not (p. 374-376), trying to convince herself.

-Why did the children had to die? Because Medea had many enemies who would maybe kill her children after she leaves Corinth and after the crime she committed, killing Creon's daughter. Also, they brought the poison to Creon's daughter, even though she was the mastermind behind the murder so they would've been targets and hated.

-Plus, if Jason had married Creon's daughter and had new children, Medea thought that he wouldn't care about his two sons anymore and would abandon them/ other reason for Medea to murder them.

-What if one of Creon's relatived would kill Medea's sons to get revenge on Medea.

-There are a lot of details described about the murders, no death should occur on stage.

Sheet of the Week 11/15

Hi class,
Hope you enjoyed the weekend and this fine fall weather.  (Unless of course you were inside, preparing for your Medea orals??)

Oh, just kidding.  But we will be concentrating on the orals this week.  And I hope you'll actually enjoy them, and the conversation that comes with them.  It can be a good way to learn/practice your close reading skills.  And don't forget to make good links to the books from last year.  It might actually help to bring the books in, the better to jog our (and your) memories.

Another reminder that Medea synthesis questions are due Thursday.  I'll return your close reads by Wednesday -- don't forget you also have a blog grade, so take care of that soon!  (I'm really enjoying the posts so far -- hope others will comment and add their own.)

Till tomorrow --

Jason: A tragic hero?

Hi everyone!

So I got to thinking, and I wanted to open up this question to all of you...What does Jason regret exactly? Does he regret marrying Medea in the first place. even if she bore him sons? Does he solely regret his sons' deaths as a result of his new marriage (but not the union itself)? Or does he regret his new marriage, because if it hadn't taken place he would have experience Medea's wrath?

For me, this begs the question: is Jason a tragic hero?

For if Jason were a tragic hero he would have recognized his wrongdoing or tragic flaw (if he had one, it would be perhaps lust or even pride - he does take pride in his "more sophisticated" reasoning). Then he would regret having that flaw. But because he does not do the former, the latter cannot take place. Thus he cannot possibly be a tragic hero in the traditional sense. I do think that he possesses similar traits, but I don't find him very honest nor "good" in the moral sense, despite the times and despite the social conventions of his era. So...Jason doesn't regret his new marriage - he never even mentions this in the text.

So that leaves us with regretting the death of his boys and regretting his marriage to Medea.

I think it's hard to say outright that Jason regrets his marriage to Medea, because for one, Medea did give him his children and two, she helped him become a hero. There is a reason why Aphrodite (referring to the time before when the play takes place) made these two fall in love. In fact, Jason never states outright that he regrets marrying Medea - he only curses her for her actions. It even seems as if she leveled the playing field in some way: he says "You share my broken life" (388), showing that because they are equally hurt and childless, it's as if they could continue living a life together, as odd as it sounds. So I conclude from this that Jason does not regret marrying Medea.

He regrets his sons' deaths, quite obviously. But I believe that it's hard to say that that is the sole thing he regrets. As such, I must conclude for myself that Jason not only regrets his sons' deaths, but also Medea's reaction to his new marriage - but not Medea herself. (Need proof? In his speech on page 386, Jason, states "the gods have released the fiend in you" instead of simply saying "you")Or perhaps, Jason is too shocked to really regret anything at all and is just very angry and desperate. He has nothing left, so there is no room - mentally - to feel anything at all, and he can only mourn.

So? What do you think? :)

Good Morning,

As we all know, Euripides' "Medea" is in great part about the relation between Jason and Medea: He cheats on her and she doesn't appreciate it. A problematic relationship. Now, for the pleasure of my class, I had decided to explore the genealogic relation of Jason and Medea; by trying to innocently satisfy my curiosity, I uncovered an other HUGE problem in Medea and Jason's relationship (and doing so, a huge problem in the way greek gods pair-up in between themselves). Indeed, we already know Medea gets to ride on her pimped-out and dragon-fueled flying chariot because she is the grand-daughter of Helios; god of the sun. Those who know a little more myhtology and/or have read the story of golden fleece might also know that Jason, husband of Medea, is the son of Aeson. I don't think anyone knows any further details so I will take over from here ( if you get lost, please follow the attached map).

Helios was the son of Hyperion and Theia, two of the twelve titans (they are thus brother and sister). Hyperion and Theia count, among their siblings, Oceanus and Tethys who together had three children. One of these was Klymene, father of Epimetheus, father of Pyrrha, mother of Hellen, mother of Aeolus, father of Salmoneus. Salmoneus' daughter married twice and one of her sons with Cretheus was Aeson, father of Jason.

Now, you're probably completely lost, that's ok. The important thing that should have been remarked though is that we went down more than we went up. To make this clear, I will go down one generation at a time. First, there is the twelve Titans, then a generation with Helios on one side and Klymene on the other. Then we have the generation of Medea's parent and of Epimetheus. After that, we have Medea on one side and Pyrrha on the other. Where is Jason ? Six generations down.

If after all this you're still not getting it, get ready; Medea is six generations older than Jason. Medea could be the age of Jason's great-great-great-great-grand-mother.

Do we still blame Jason for the attraction of younger flesh ?

Ps: if my map is not clear, Medea is the red dot at the bottom of the left root and Jason is the one at the bottom of the right root.

Toni Morrison Interview

PS: I found this interview with Toni Morrison and I found it really interesting the way that she compares the black is beautiful movement at the time she wrote the book and the ugliness that is present thoughout the entire book mainly with Pecola. And also when she talks about black people in books it reminded me of how we read Dick and Jane, and she talks a little bit about one of her beginnings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8Zgu2hrs2k

Connection between Cholly and Letter from a Birmingham Jail

Hello,

I know this is a little late since it has to do with Bluest Eye, but I found an interesting connection between the rape with Cholly and a certain quote in letter For a Birmingham Jail.

On page 9 of 10 in Martin Luther King Jr.'s letter, he talks about policemen that use "moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice" and he then quotes T.S. Eliot saying: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason".
And this reminded me of Cholly and how he had all of these mixed emotions towards Pecola about how he loved her but wanted to rape her, because sex was the only way he knew how to show love when he was drunk. But I thought that is was the opposite for Cholly, he wants to the wrong deed for the right reason. He wanted to show love but like I said does it by raping her. But he genuinely thinks that he is doing something nice to and for her. He just wanted to take the sadness out of her with love but it was the wrong kind. Also, when we see the rape seen through Cholly's eyes, Pecola is portrayed as a sort of temptation although she did not necessarily do anything to be one. The way that she was just standing there and her body movements, like when she itched her leg with her foot, just tempted Cholly even more.

MEDEA 1983

Here's a clip from the 1983 version of Medea. Zoe Caldwell won the Tony Award for her portrayal of the character. The script differs a bit from the version of the text we're reading, but it offers another take on Medea. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zInoTXKyOvI

Sheet of the Week 11/8

Jason and Medea in happier days...

Dear class,

A quick rundown of the week:

Monday: close reading exam.  Be sure to take another look at the sample, as well as the rhetorical device sheet.

For Wednesday, finish reading Medea.  We basically have two periods to finish discussing, so we have to be quick in wrap up.  I'll give you Thursday to prepare your orals.  Note: we'll be going over the play's language carefully with the orals, so some of what we didn't say in discussion will come out then.

The orals will take place the week of the 15th.  Also due that week (the 18th) are the synthesis questions on Medea.

I will start assessing you this week on your blog work.  So be sure you're posting.  Check out Claire and Veronica's recent posts and add or begin your own.

And your final grade is your participation.  I count what I see as well as hear so make sure you are taking notes and paying attention!

Have a good weekend!

Spring Bluest Eye

1.

- many people have their birthdays in the spring

- season of love and fertility

- season of warmth and beauty

- has a very positive atmosphere

- a time for new beginnings (Easter--resurrection, certain mammals come out of hibernation)

2.

- for Claudia, spring is associated with pain (they change the whips, these hurt more)

- passively negative: build-up to end on that note of the park where black children were not allowed to play --> it filled their dreams

3.

- Pecola is physically capable of conceiving a child

- physically fertile but it's an evil seed

- Pecola = unyielding earth?

- it's not her fault; never was