(Almost) Back from the BAC!

Hi all,

Just a quick message of encouragement for your ongoing exams this week.  You can DO it -- and if you'd like a little extra help, Ms. Reilly will be holding a final review session tomorrow (Monday) at 2:00 in room 516.  Be there for some last minute tips, practice with a Bac-style question and MORE!

I'll see you in class again Thursday (Wednesday for the S kids?).  We'll pick up where we left off with Dickinson and Hamlet.  Snakes in the grass, birds on the wing, skulls in hand?  Ahhhhhh, spring.

¡¡¡¡¡¡ If Only Ophelia had a Sassy Gay Friend !!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnvgq8STMGM

"This is HAM-LET we're talking about- HAAAAM-LET"

:3

i hope we can watch this in class

Conrad Close-Reading Passage 12

Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness is the story of Charles Marlow, an English explorer working for a Belgian trading company in the colonized Congo. The novel has two narrators: Marlow's voice is dominant; the second voice is that of an English sailor listening to Marlow's tales years after his experience in the Congo. The passage in question is narrated by Marlow. It occurs in part II on page 44: "The earth seemed unearthly. (...) Of course, a fool, what with sheer fright and fine sentiments, is always safe." In brief, the scene which he describes is a particular moment on the steamship where while going down the Congo River, he sees a group of natives running by the shore creating a loud frenzy. Marlow's observations then become a reflection of something that goes a little beyond appearances. He denotes the disparities between the natives and the travelers. The passage shows Marlow's effort to appeal to European imperialist readers to convince them that the disparities between Congolese and Europeans are not as momentous as they appear.
Marlow's oratorical skill is the key element of his message. The passage seems to be divided into two bodies: the first is his description of the commotion on the shore. In this first part, he uses many negations and antitheses. It begins with "The earth seemed unearthly," which sets the tone immediately. It is the beginning of a well thought-out structure: it starts off from a so to speak distant and general perspective the natives create that promptly focuses little by little to a specific aspect of their nature. In short, he starts off by saying that through this tumultuous excitement, the earth was no longer earth-like; it became a negation of itself. These unshackled "monsters" however, could have a humanity "like yours." Marlow uses negations and contradictions to convince his audience. The natives are monsters in the eyes of the colonizers, but their humanity or the possibility of their humanity becomes all too real for Marlow. Of course, the discrepancies still exist, but so does a kind of "remote kinship." He casts his point by stating that it is "this wild and passionate uproar" which is the framework of the natives' humanity. That which seemed to distinguish the civil and the savage creates kinship.
The second part of the of the passage is reflective reasoning. Marlow's narrative drops all the negations and contradictions which made his argument seem strictly subjective. He takes on a different approach; the readers enter Marlow's mind while he contemplates the natives' humanity. The formulation of his sentences makes his speech seem more like a philosophical reasoning. The narrative still keeps its oration-like aspect. Marlow uses rhetorical questions and pauses. What he is trying to convey takes on a different turn from what it started off to be: he is no longer simply commenting on how different and yet relatable two worlds can be, but he is also (somewhat implicitly) speaking against imperialism.
The concept of duality is omnipresent in this passage. The description of the natives recalls something that you could see at a zoo or a freak show. In that image, there are men who cage and men who are caged. But the link between them is that they are both men, men that were once both of "the first ages." The matter of the mind comes up too, as a provocation to the imperialist and colonialist thinkers: there is he who sees the truth and is deserving of being called "man"; and there is he who runs from it, who can only be called "fool." It's almost as though Conrad's voice is heard through Marlow. He is showing to the Europeans that that which terrifies them so much of the natives is that they have remained men of the "first ages," whereas the colonizers have taken a different path through time. Marlow brings into question human emotions as well, and to him, these only act as tools that emphasize prejudice and prevent the clarity of truth to seep through. The reality that Marlow is portraying is that if the truth were to be "stripped of its cloak of time," then both groups of men–– natives and colonial imperialists, would be reduced to that which they were in the beginning. According to him, only a true "man" would be able to see this truth and the man who gawks and squawks at the site of the natives is he who is the fool, because that is the safest assumed position. Ironically, Marlow declares that in order for the Europeans to understand what he means, they have to be as much "men" as the natives, "he must at least be as much of a man as these on the shore."
There two sides to the tone of the passage: where the story-teller ends is where the orator begins. There is a very philosophical side to what Marlow says in this passage, especially in the way that he describes it. There are many pauses and negations in this particular part and it adds to the suspense of the story-teller. But at the same time, his whole dialogue or reflection follows a logical development. Marlow is very skilled in the art of speaking and he is skilled at using poetic devices as well as tools of rhetoric. He utilizes his vivid description of the shrieks and of the freedom of these so-called "monsters," and he turns it around to a completely reversed idea. Marlow, or more specifically Conrad, knows how to reach out to his audience and appeal to them in order to get his idea and message across. From the first read even, what he is trying to say is not overall clear. The pauses in his speech give it a very authentic kind of feel. It is easy to forget in many parts of the book that everything that is being counted, is actually a recount of what had happened in the past. So it is in moments and passages like this one that the authenticity of what Marlow is saying and the context in which he is saying it becomes valid. As readers, we are called back to the scene watching Marlow tell his tale to his crew back in England. We are present in the Congo only through Marlow's memory and not through his eyes. Perhaps that is why it seems more genuine: he has had time to reflect on this episode that clearly affected him. The manner in which he retells it though seems very worked, as if he has already developped a clear idea of the significance of this seemingly trivial event. As a result, we have in this passage a kind of synthesis between the surreality a good storyteller gives to his tales, and an eloquent recount of a realization.
The passage just seems to be an early critique of European ignorance. Conrad is attempting to carry out an anti-imperial message, but his promotions of it are passive. Through the book, he never overtly declares his opinions about imperialism and colonialism. His thoughts and opinions remain sometimes ambiguous, as his character Marlow is specifically designed to be an unbiased character. But the passage in question is very significant, because he does make it relatively clear that the imperialist/colonist is a fool and the native is a man. What he says is very strong and is unlikely to have been missed by readers, but what reduces the impact of such a declaration is the manner in which he first describes the natives. It is strange the way Conrad phrases all of it, but it does seem to be with purpose. Perhaps in order to appeal and to convince an audience which is mainly prejudiced, there has to be a balance between what they expect to read and Conrad's message. By slowly giving more weight to the deeper message, Conrad aims to convince his readers that their supposed certainties about the barbarity of the African peoples is simply a refusal in recognizing equivalences.

Conrad close readings

Hi all,
I've put together the Heart of Darkness close readings sent to me online.  (Less than half of the class... if any others want to add to this, feel free!).  Look for them under the listing to the left "Conrad close readings."  I hope they'll be a useful study aid to you all!

Sheet of the Week 3/14

Pyrrus

Hi all,
First, my thanks to those who stayed for Apocalypse Now on Friday.  I know it was long (and the chairs were less than comfortable), but I'll be eager to hear your thoughts, particularly about connections and divergences from the novel.  The horror!  The hoooorrrrrorrrrrr!

Anyway...about this week:

Monday we'll finish our discussion of Act 2 of Hamlet.  Be on the look out for Pyrrus (and Hecuba) and the "rogue and peasant slave" speech -- both justly famous (and highly possible for the orals!) 

On Wednesday, we'll do some review for the orals, including final thoughts on "Narrow Fellow" -- especially on form.

Thursday, we'll continue with either Hamlet or more Dickinson.  I'll make the decision once we see how the week unfolds...

REMEMBER also for those taking the AP exam, your first training session is this Wednesday, March 16 -- starting in the second hour of dialogue.

Till tomorrow,

EH

Apocalypse Now

Get ready for our trip into the jungle...

Friday 3/11 from 4-7 on the 5th floor.  Feel free to bring snacks -- it's a great movie but a long one.

Sheet of the Week 3/7

Hi all,
Hope you're enjoying your weekends.  Here's a few notes about the week to come:

For Monday, please finish Act 1 and read scene 1 of Act 2.  We'll be working on these tomorrow, as well as Dickinson's "Narrow Fellow" poem.  It's linked to the many snakes we've been reading about so far, from the Green Mamba in PB, the Congo, and now, of course, the "serpent" that killed King Hamlet.  Sssssssss!

For Wednesday, we'll continue with Act 2.  Remember that these first Acts are fair game for your upcoming mock orals, which will happen March 21 and 22.  I'll give you the schedule tomorrow; please let me know immediately if there's a problem with your time slot. 

For Thursday, we'll return briefly to Heart of Darkness, talking about Achebe's article and perhaps Adiche's "A Single Story."  A little delayed, I know -- but it should be a good refresher for Friday's film night.
Don't forget, we'll be seeing Apocalypse Now together that night... starting immediately after school, finishing by 7 or 7:30.

Sheet of the Week 2/28

Well, it's almost red carpet time... hope all your Hamlet reading is finished so you can start commenting on the really important stuff, like who's wearing what at the Oscars this evening....

Just a few quick notes about the upcoming week:

For Monday, please make sure you've read to the end of scene 3.  We'll have lots to discuss and probably a bit of acting to do, so get ready to do your best soliloquy.  Not quite "to be or not to be" yet -- but some other juicy speeches are coming right up.

For Wednesday, read scenes 4 and 5.

For Thursday, finish Heart of Darkness commentaries/ close readings.

Also -- we'll finally be viewing Apocalypse Now together on Friday, March 11.  Please mark your calendars and pop some popcorn.  It's going to be a dark and dirty ride...

Till tomorrow --

1st rr excerpt

            Once Marlow starts telling his story, the first scene with the men on the Nellie, and the narrator’s role seem irrelevant or to have lost importance. At least for the rest of the first part because the novel isn’t telling their story but Marlow’s story. I think that this way of setting the story in motion is interesting even though the reason for it isn’t evident. I think that the author may have wanted to start by telling us about the Nellie and giving us a narrator that is not Marlow so that we can have an outside view of the character. Considering the rest of the story is told through Marlow’s words, the original narrator’s perception of the explorer is the only one we have besides the idea we would get of him through his own words.

            Also, the author may have wanted to start the novel on the Thames so as to create a more impactful contrast with the setting of Marlow’s story. It could even serve as a general introduction to an explorer or sailor’s world, as the narrators’ observations do mostly concern life as an explorer and as a sailor. These observations will then be important throughout the rest of the part.

RR post

I felt that the company didn’t perceive Kurtz as an equal human being given his “transformations” from living on the African continent. They feel he is some sort of hybrid between the indigenous “savages” and them, no longer a concrete human being. This image is redoubled when we meet Kurtz and he is dehumanized by his sickness, forced to crawl around on 4 legs and can barely speak. Marlow treats him as an infirm, inferior to him. However, despite the fact that Marlow seems to hate Kurtz and feels betrayed by his past conception and by Kurtz’s “unsound” methods of educating and imposing colonization upon the natives, he takes his side when Kurtz is finally confronted by the company’s manager, who finds Kurtz unfit for his duty, based on his “unique” way of governing. Marlow feels disgust and has to choose between two wrongs: supporting the brutal, heartless Kurtz or supporting the hypocritical manager.

In my opinion, Marlow chose to stay with Kurtz because he believed it was the managers fault that Kurtz became the way he became. The managers naïveté, and his unwillingness to see the ineffectiveness or cruelty of his colonizing methods was far worse than Kurtz simply trying to complete the mission he set out to complete by any means. Kurtz is more enlightened than the manager, and has some of conception of Africa, since he has been so changed by it. It is evident that he realizes the stupidity and madness of any attempt to colonize Africa when he claims “the horror! The horror!” right before he dies. For me, this means that Kurtz understands to what point it is impossible to continue to hope that one day Europeans will manage to tame the “wild” Africa. Perhaps it’s the horror at his own futility, or the horror at the naivete of his commanders in Europe, I don’t know for sure.

Reader Response 3; resume

As this is possibly and regrettably the last reader response we are going to write on “Heart of Darkness”, I feel it is necessary to try and respond, through it, to a question I brought up in my first reader response of this book. The question was about the title of the book; what is the “Heart of Darkness”? [...]

Having now travelled the distance through the rest of the book, I feel that I am not only capable of supporting my initial hypothesis but also capable of bringing a new notion to this definition of darkness. The new notion introduced at the end of the third book is Kurtz’s “horror”; I believe this “horror” is the very darkness I had previously searched for.[...]Marlow has thus both the chance and the misfortune to hear Kurtz’s last word; “The horror! The horror!” I had stopped myself at defining the darkness as the re-grouping of the forest, the natives and their treatment, the old woman’s wool and Marlow’s passivity, in other words, as the setting both physically, historically and mentally of the characters in Marlow’s narrative.

When Kurtz pronounces his last words, he does so as one would make a general statement; “the horror” is not re-attached to anything in particular, it is Kurtz’s last report on the Congo, on humanity. To fit my purpose, I like to consider that these words are used by the dying man to make a final resume of what he has seen, smelled, tasted, felt and lived throughout his Congolese experience. It is this horror, that regroups the dark forest, the unspoken rituals, the heads on sticks, the ivory, the “devils”; the darkness. Following this logic, we can infer that “The Heart of Darkness” is a heart of horrors; where all of the world’s horrors go to be swept under the carpet of the earth, in Kurtz’s Congo.

For this reason, if this hint is not invalid, these words are quite possibly the book’s most important words. Indeed they sum up not only the setting the characters evolve in, but also the state of mind of the characters and to some extent, the historical state of the narrative.

Sheet of the Week 2/22

Hi all,
Hope you've had a great break.  It's hard to believe we're back tomorrow... unless, of course, there's another snow day (she said hopefully)...

Here's the plan for the week:
Wednesday: Heart of Darkness and Poisonwood Bible --together at last!  *Don't forget: PB questions are due in class.*  I hope preparing them will have helped you do a bit of review, since it's been a long time since the first read.  I think it will be interesting to talk about the two books together, though, and will start us off with some passages that seems particularly potent.

Thursday-which-is-Monday:
First Hour: Chinua Achebe's essay on Heart of Darkness.  I'll give you copies of this on Wednesday and ask you to read it for the next day.  We'll talk about it, then listen to Adiche's "A Single Story" which I think will give us additional perspective.

Second Hour:  We'll begin Hamlet.  Wahoo! Please, please, please bring your texts to class. 

For Monday, you'll be reading scenes 2-3 in Act I.  Because we need to get going on this reading, you get a little more time on your commentaries -- they'll now be due Thursday, 3/3.   (Thank you, Ms. Hollow!)

Till tomorrow --

I choose passage 10!

RR Part 3 Excerpt

This last part is also full of action. As the steamer departs after the jungle experience with Kurtz, it seems that Kurtz may still reach the end of the river and maybe come back to Europe to see his “intended”. But, the boat breaks down once again which takes a lot of time to repair. This has both and effect on Kurtz who dies before they repair the ship but also on Marlow who almost dies. Marlow is now in a bad state both physically and mentally. We can see that the expedition as a whole has weakened him physically. He has done many repairs and natives have attacked him. Mentally, his state is even worse as he has seen two people die before him and he has seen the horrors that are taking place in the Congo. This has a really great effect on him as he is not totally sane. At the beginning of the novel, we knew that his trip would be hazardous and tragic but not really in this way: even if he returns home he will never be the same as he is traumatized by what has happened here.

What I also liked is the end of the book because it returns to the image of the “heart of darkness”; here it is seen through the color of the sky. As we look at the book as a whole we see that there were numerous hearts of darkness and not only a single one. The Company and Kurtz could seem as hearts of darkness as their philosophy was to destroy a civilization. Moreover, we can feel that Marlow, who was in the beginning a good sailor, has now become a terrible man. He doesn’t want to follow in Kurtz’s steps but it seems his vision of the world has turned all gray: he cannot really be happy anymore after what has happened to him.

HofD Part 3 RR Excerpt

I think that Marlow came a little too late to see the real Kurtz, the one who was showered with praise coming from other agents such as the chief accountant, the Russian trader who worked with him and was close to him. At the same time, Marlow was maybe expecting too much out of Kurtz after what he had heard; he thought he was going to meet a God-like figure. Since his hopes were very high, he was disappointed after seeing Kurtz but also showed some admiration towards him. Marlow also stated the “incredible degradation” of Kurtz, who had been sick and was dying. The latter was “not much heavier than a child” something Marlow stated as he was carrying him at a point in Part III. Kurtz was not the same as before; the wildlife clearly had taken over him as it had done with many other pilgrims. He was mad but still his conscience and intelligence. Maybe Kurtz was overrated and did not actually deserve all of this praise but I mostly think that he was a great man but had been transformed and became “scientifically interesting” after years passed in Congo. Other pilgrims who had seen Marlow with Kurtz were not impressed as they would have been had this been some time before. Marlow states that the “pilgrims looked upon me with disfavor”, something they firstly felt about Kurtz and now about Marlow because he was with Kurtz.

Kurtz was leading a double life at this point in my opinion as he was liked by some natives who did not want him to leave. They obeyed him; like for example when he ordered some to attack the steamship Marlow and the manager were on. He himself did not want to leave. His mistress was a native as well. On the other hand, Kurtz was still performing his duty towards the Company as the amount of ivory he had collected was still good.

Recap for the Close Reading

Passage 2: Camille
Passage 3: Claire
Passage 5: Laure-Abeille
Passage 12: Veronica
Passage 13: Ann-Sophie
Passage on page 50-51 (which is not one of the passages on the HOD/PB link): Anais


PS: Passage 5 and 17 are the same.

RR Part III

Marlow makes clear that he believes Kurtz to have gone mad. Marlow states that Kurtz was “hollow at the core…”, on page 72. As he hears more and more about Kurtz through the Russian man, Marlow becomes disgusted, he shouts, “I don’t want to know anything of the ceremonies used when approaching Mr Kurtz” […] “Mr Kurtz was no idol of mine”, p.72-73. It is when Marlow sees Kurtz for the first time that we finally see him through criticizing eyes, for what he has truly become: “It was as though an animated image of death carved out of ivory had been shaking its hand with menaces at a motionless crowd of men made of dark and glittering bronze.”, page 74. Although this description is dark and horrible, it is so symbolic with him as death for he can kill who he wants, but he himself has died inside; for ivory is white like him, but also what he has become, what he wants, his reason to live, and because it is “old ivory”, it has lost its worth. Although Kurtz came to the Congo with good intentions, opposing to everybody else’s greed, he has become obsessed with ivory in his quest to prove himself to his fiancé’s parents. Marlow still does respect him, “I think Mr Kurtz is a respectable man”, but the manager answers him coldly, “He was”, page 77. Although Marlow seemed obsessed with Kurtz throughout his journey, I feel that thinking of him was a way of putting aside all the horrors happening around him, having a goal. However, Marlow is still confused about his feelings for Kurtz, sensing disgust as well as respect for him.

RR # 3

[Excerpt]

At this point in the novel, Marlow has reached the Inner station, and it seems as if the reader has reached the inner darkness of the Congo’s heart. Kurtz has become this powerful figure, admired by he natives, and distinguishes himself form the rest of the members of the company, taking Marlow along with him. We discover Kurtz has a lover, and Marlow seems to dive deeper and deeper in the nightmares of his journey.

[...]

Marlow still occupies the same ambiguous position like in the beginning of the novel when he was ironic at times, and not so much at other times. In the end, although he is obviously disturbed by his journey in the African continent, he has acquired something the other men had not been seeking when they decided to board on the Nellie: experience, almost wisdom. It seems as if Marlow has deeply changed, matured during his expedition. However, he still views the events that have occurred during the journey as justifiable, because he has reached a certain status by confronting such hardships. In fact, he feels elevated by his experience, and feels he can judge and excuse the horror and violence of colonialism, because the men that participate in this mission come out of it with something bigger than wealth. This notion is very controversial, and Conrad concludes by leaving us to think about this outrageous issue.

Close Reading- RR #1

Firstly, Marlow describes with great detail the appearance of the “chain-gang”. The choice of words of Marlow paints a frightening and impressive portrait of the natives: “erect”, “criminals”, “outraged”, “violently”, “deathlike” (p.18). This creates a great contrast with Marlow: while they seem tall, strong, and dangerous, Marlow is alone, and seems much weaker; however, Marlow is not chained.

Moreover, the group is led by a white man: “ Behind this raw matter one of the reclaimed, the product of the new forces at work, strolled despondently, carrying a rifle by its middle.” Therefore, on top of the fist sentiment of indifference is added that of fear and incomprehension: Marlow seems unsympathetic of the bond that naturally exists between the white leader of the group and himself simply because of the color of his skin. Marlow emphasizes this with an ironic tone: “ After all, I also was a part of the great cause of these high and just proceedings.” (p.19). It is as if Marlow is automatically considered an ally because he is European, and is therefore expected to fully support the colonizing mission in the African continent.

DIBS ON.....

PASSAGE 12!!!!!