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