Sheet of the week / 12.13

Dear oib class,

Ahhh.  A film-filled week to look forward to.  Just the thing for the week before break!
On Monday, we will meet in class.  We are going to watch Streetcar, but we don't have the auditorium until 11:15 so we'll begin in class and then go down.
On Wednesday, please note that the film begins at 8.  If you come in later, you will miss part of it.  Make an effort to come in early!
On Thursday, we will have a class period to wrap up Streetcar, though I anticipate some leftover discussion for after the break, and I will be giving you some synthesis questions to do.

And please begin blogging for the second trimester...

DST practice

Here are a few practice DST questions.  I've also placed some sample essays and close readings in the pages to left (under "sample / study aids").  Happy reading!

1. Show how the climaxes in two works of literature that you have studied are related to the central action and give meaning to the whole work.

2.We can, at times, forgive the damage caused by the weak and the stupid; but when the damage is caused by the strong and intelligent, the action producing the damage shocks us.  Develop this idea by discussing the damage produced by characters in two of the works you have studied.

3.”It is not true that suffering ennobles the character; happiness does that sometimes, but suffering, for the most part, makes men petty and vindictive.”  Do you agree with these words by W. Somerset Maugham?  Discuss, using two works of literature you have read.

The one, the only... New Orleans' Annual "Stella" scream contest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPqyvg14HTY&feature=related

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.