How I Learned to Drive

This was a very interesting play. It was the first play I have read that deals with such a controversial issue like pedophilia. However, as most of us in society condemn pedophilia and think that people who commit this crime should be locked away forever, or maybe even given the death sentence, I feel that Vogel's view makes us feel less sympathetic toward Lil Bit and less condemning of Uncle Peck.

How Vogel accomplishes this is through making Lil Bit and Uncle Peck's relationship seem more like a romantic relationship than an adult man who has a weird fetish of having sex with underage girls. This is shown throughout the play in many ways. First off, Lil Bit and Uncle Peck never actually have sexual intercourse. I feel that if this play wanted to condemn people who committed pedophilia, Vogel would have had Uncle Peck force Lil Bit into having sex with him. However, Uncle Peck consistently tells Lil Bet that he is willing to wait until she is ready, almost like a regular relationship between a boyfriend and girlfriend where the boyfriend is not a virgin while the girlfriend is, and the guy wants to have sex with her but respects her wishes. Another point which makes Uncle Peck seem less like a pedophile is the fact that he is always there for her and seems to truly care about her well being. When Lil Bit has scuffles with her family, Uncle Peck is there to make it all better. He also teaches her how to drive and sticks up for her when she says she wants to go to college and learn something and her family says that she is only good for becoming a wife, having sex, and raising children.

Top Girls

I think that Act 2 Scene 2 is a good example of Churchill trying to achieve critical distance. In this scene there are two girls, Kit and Angie. Kit is only 12 years old and Angie is 16. They are both hanging out in the backyard and are bored with nothing to do. They talk about watching The Exterminator and whether they can get into x rated movies and then Angie talks about being able to move things. Then all of a sudden Angie says "mind my hair you silly cunt" and Kit says "stupid fucking cow, I hate you". This really made me take a step back and ask questions because I was really surprised to see girls this young using such disturbing language. It makes me ask myself what kind of an environment these girls grew up in that they call each other such names. Right after Angie says, "I'm going to kill my mother and you're going to watch". Whoa. That is a pretty weird statement.  If you're going to kill somebody for revenge why would you kill your own mother? Wouldn't you want to murder someone that is close to the person you're trying to get revenge on? Then Angie says that she is a cannibal and that she is going to turn into a vampire right now. Okay, this scene just keeps getting weirder and weirder. I don't even know what to say to that comment. I mean I can understand the vampire part because they are talking about blood but becoming a cannibal? If someone heard you say that I'm sure you would be sent away to receive some sort of therapy.

Theater of the Absurd

I found it very interesting that the inmates  at the San Quentin penitentiary understood Waiting for Godot while many of the intellectual critics did not. Esslin explained that this happens because the convicts were unsophisticated enough to go to the theater without any preconceived notions and expectations in their minds, allowing them to avoid the mistake that the critics fell into of criticizing the play for its lack of plot and characters. I find this scenario to happen a lot with new things people experience whether it is a new movie, book, or something of the like. If the person has background knowledge about the subject and is very informed, then he or she will have preconceived notions about what the book, movie, etc. should be like and what should happen. If the book or movie doesn't turn out like the person intended for it to, then they will view the book or movie as very poor and not very good. On the other hand, if you take someone who has never heard of Harry Potter before and stick them in one of the movies or have them read a book, they will have no expectations as to what is supposed to happen. They will sit there and enjoy the movie/book for what it is instead of saying to them self, "OK now Harry is supposed to do this" or "Now Ron will say this". When watching Krapp's Last Tape and other Beckett plays shown in class, I did not have any preconceived notions ahead of time. I sort of felt like the inmates- I didn't know what Beckett's plays would be like or what the Theater of the Absurd even was. This allowed me to take in the play in its entirety, and enjoy it for what was rather then criticizing the play for what it should have been (Aristotelian plot, etc).

Krapp's Last Tape

I decided to answer Kristin's question that she gave us at the end of lecture: What was your cerebral response? What was your visceral response?

Let's start with my visceral or gut response. I thought that they play was extremely boring. Essentially, all this play is about is an old man who sits and listens to recorded tapes of himself from years past. There is no exciting plot with an epic fight at the end and the hero destroying the bad guy. There isn't a mystery that plagues us until the very end in which we finally found out that HE killed his wife. No, this play is simply about an old man who loves to eat bananas and sits around listening to tapes of himself when he was younger. Nothing very exciting about that.

However, on a cerebral level, my response was much different. I thought it was pretty clever for Beckett to use a tape recorder give us a picture on Krapp's past.When he wrote Krapp's Last Tape, tape recorders were a new invention and as such there weren't really known all that well throughout Europe. Using this new invention, Beckett designed the play so the way in which we got to learn about Krapp's past and how he came to be the way he is was through the use of the tape recorder rather than him telling us or a family member. Beckett embraced this new technology rather than being scared or skeptical of it, and really used the prop well in his play. Heck, the entire play revolves around the tape recorder. Without it, the play couldn't exist.

The Cherry Orchard

There was an interesting debate between Chekhov, the play-write, and Stanislavski, the director of the play. Chekov intended for The Cherry Orchard to be a comedy while Stanislavski directed the play as if it was a tragedy.

After reading The Cherry Orchard I feel that this play resides more as a tragedy to me. First, I viewed the ending as Liubov losing the cherry orchard (tragedy) rather than Lopakhin buying the cherry orchard (comedy). It was very sad that the family was forced to leave the estate at the end of the play and wasn't able to pay off the debt. It is uncertain what will happen to the family. Will Liubov's lover in Paris even be there when she returns? Will he even want to be with her anymore? How will Anya do in school? Will she succeed and be successful in her life? Will Gayev be successful at his new job at a bank? All these questions pop into our head as the characters all go their separate ways at the end of the play, and we do not know what will become of them. Not a very comedic (happy) sounding ending to me. Second, I didn't find the fact that the roles being reversed between poor and rich very comedic. According to lecture, an element of a comedic play is when the poor surpasses the rich. This is seen in The Cherry Orchard when the serf Lopakhin ends up buying the rich family's estate at the end of the play. I can see where comedy comes in, because it is very ironic that the poor person buys the rich person's house, but I still find it tragic that the family is forced out into the world and they don't know what to do with their lives or how to react.

The Importance of Being Earnest

This play was an enjoyable read, much more light-hearted then the previous plays we have read about tragedy and death. Some comedic elements that I noticed while reading The Importance of Being Earnest were Shakespeare's mistaken identity, marriage, and feasting or excessive eating.

The first comedic element I noticed was mistaken identity. This is seen in Jack's pretend character, Earnest, and Algeron's pretend character, Bunbury. The mistaken identity is not only seen in Cecily and Gwendolyn when they think that both their suitor's names are Earnest, but also in the end when Jack finds out that his name really is Earnest, which make the play that much more comical.

Another comedic element I noticed in this play was marriage. Both Jack and Algeron are single and both have pretended to be someone else so that they could woo Gwendolyn and Cecily and propose to them. At first, the marriages are doubtful because Lady Bracknell won't give consent for Gwendolyn to marry Jack and Jack won't allow Cecily to marry Algeron. However, after fast plot resolutions and quick resolutions (another element), both Jack and Algeron are allowed to marry Gwendolyn and Cecily by the end of the play.

A third comedic element seen in The Importance of Being Earnest is that of feasting and excessive eating. In the beginning of the play, Alergon has his butler set out a platter of cucumber sandwiches for when Lady Bracknell visits. However, in his conversation with Jack, Alergon has absentmindedly eaten all of the sandwiches. The notion of decadence and pleasure of Wilde's work is seen through the use of feasting and the sandwiches.

An Interview with Kent Thompson

There were a couple parts of this interview that intrigued me, but what intrigued me the most was the comment that Kent Thompson made about producing Othello in a smaller stage to create intimacy with the audience.

The smaller stage that Thompson decided to use for Othello was called the Octagon and held about 225 people. The Octagon was only about 1/3rd the size of the theater that Thompson usually produces Othello in, the Festival Stage. Thompson decided to do this because the smaller stage made the play more intimate with the audience, and made "the pain and anger and racism impossible to escape". I think this was a brilliant move on Thompson's part. The whole reason for plays, and especially tragedies, is to engage the audience and make them feel a certain way. A play wouldn't be successful if it couldn't make the audience feel a certain way after it ended or have lingering emotions after it was over. The smaller stage for Othello really helped all the emotional issues affect the audience and make them think about the play after it ended. Some of these issues throughout the play include, lago's plot to hurt everyone around him, Othello's murder of Desdemona, Othello's suicide, and the overall idea of racism between Othello and his status and marriage in white Venetian society. Of course, everyone felt disgust toward lago because of his evil plot and uncertain reasons to commit such crime. However, there were other emotions felt after the play that weren't as clear-cut. For example, after Othello killed himself should we feel that what Othello did was fair because he took the life of someone he loved and sacrificed himself to make up for it and be with her in the afterlife? Or should we feel upset that Othello didn't man up to his actions and go to Venice to face the consequences for the mistake he made. Some of the emotions we feel after seeing the play are pretty uniform across the audience and others may vary from person to person.

Othello

Wow, this is one long play. I opened up the text to Othello and realized it was almost a hundred pages.  As for the story itself, it was extremely complex and hard to follow. Othello reminded me of the readings we did on Aristotle and tragedy, more specifically the fact that plot the most important piece of a tragedy, as well as how a tragedy should end.

Shakespeare doesn't give a big background on all the characters and let us get to know them and what their personality is like. Rather, he utilizes his characters to help develop his extremely complex plot. Other than Othello and lago, most of the characters don't have very big parts in the play and only serve to help the plot. Shakespeare needs characters like Roderigo, Cassio, and Desdemona so that he can execute his carefully crafted plot about lago plotting his revenge for Othello promoting a younger man, Cassio, above him. And the story continues on and on for a very long time until the climax where the truth comes out about lago and Othello decides to commit suicide rather than face the consequences of his crimes.

There was another part about tragedies from Aristotle that I remember regarding the ending of a tragedy and what should happen so that it is a good tragedy. If i recall correctly, Aristotle states that the main character should realize his mistake and own up to it. Well, that is just about the opposite of what Othello does. Once he realizes that he killed his innocent wife who never committed adultery, Othello decides to commit suicide rather than go to Venice and face the consequences for the crimes that he committed. I feel the correct ending, according to Aristotle at least, would have been for Othello to realize that what he did was wrong and to go to Venice and face whatever punishment awaits him.

Poetics by Aristotle

In The Relative Importance of the Six Elements, Aristotle essentially talked about whether certain elements of the tragedy were important or not. Aristotle says that the greatest element of the tragedy is the structure of the events and the plot. I agree with this statement. Without the plot of a tragedy, you cannot have a coherent play. Sure you can have characters and lines for them to speak, but without an order of events, the audience will be asking why are they saying or doing this? What is the importance of what the characters are saying in relation to the entire play itself? Plot helps us to follow along in the story of a tragedy and understand what is happening throughout.

Another element of tragedy that Aristotle ranked of lower importance is that of characters. Aristotle says that "tragedies of most of our modern poets are devoid of character". In considering this statement, I think back to lecture when Professor Hunt talked about the characters in Greek tragedies. She said that there were only a few actors, usually 3, who would wear masks most of the time and dress up to become many different characters. I can see that characters in tragedies are definitely not as important as the plot. Because the actors are wearing masks, we never get to see their faces and as such don't get to connect with the personalities of the characters in the play as much. The actors also play many roles which serves to show that the characters are only there to enhance the plot and not to have us get to know all the personalities of the various actors on the stage.

Medea

I took some main points from lecture and talked about them in Medea.

Nature of community in Medea

Just like in lecture today, in Medea men are the dominant gender. They own everything, run the city, and participate in all the activities of the city. In Medea, she talks about her frustration that men have all the power and that her husband Jason can just divorce her and take her house and kids and go marry another woman, leaving Medea with nothing.

Another important aspect of community is the importance of speech. This is seen in Medea when she sweet talks Creon into letting her stay for an extra day, tricking Jason into believing that she is okay with the divorce and re-marriage, and when she talked to the King of Athens and was able to stay in Athens in exchange for helping the King become fertile again.

Nature of the stories in Medea

In lecture, we talked about how Greek tragedies' plots are about horrible mistakes that lead to greater suffering. Well, in Medea, her initial mistake was leaving her hometown to marry Jason because he ultimately ended up leaving her for another wife which caused greater suffering to Medea than when she had to leave her family behind. As for Jason, his initial mistake was falling for Medea's scheme and accepting the gifts Medea gave to Jason's new wife. Ultimately, Jason's new wife died as well as his sons, which was far greater suffering than the initial divorce from his original wife.

Death of a Salesman

A major theme in Death of a Salesman that caught my attention was the "American Dream" idea. This idea is that through hard work and determination, one can achieve happiness and wealth in their life. As seen in the play, Willy Loman epitomizes the American Dream. Even at the age of 63, he still travels hundreds of miles working countless hours to make another sale. His only goal in life is to make money so he can have a happy life and make his family happy too. However, in his quest for this American Dream, I feel Willy loses himself and becomes detached from his family. Due to his excessive traveling, Willy becomes lonely and ends up cheating on his wife with a woman at a hotel. Biff catches him with the woman which destroys their relationship and Biff can never look at his father the same way again.

I also feel that it is not fair of Willy to put this kind of pressure on his sons to become super rich businessmen, spending their entire lives trying to make money. I think that if Willy had encouraged his sons to pursue what they liked, they would have become more successful then what the ended up becoming: nothing. However, at the end I feel there is hope for Biff because he decides he wants to go down south to Texas and work outside, which is what he enjoys doing. I think that everybody can have their own version of the "American Dream" and Biff wants to fulfill his own and not Willy's.

Fires in the Mirror

A scene that intrigued me from Fires in the Mirror was “Isaac”. In this scene Letty Cottin Pogrebin tells a story of her uncle Isaac who lived in a concentration camp during World War II and was forced to herd Jews into a gas chamber in order to save his own life. Isaac discovered later that his wife and children were in the gas chamber.

This scene intrigued me because it came right after a scene where Minister Conrad Mohammad described how the enslavement of Africans and African-Americans over hundreds of years is the worst crime in history and that the Holocaust was not nearly as terrible. I think the Isaac scene is a response to the assertion from Mohammad that enslavement of Blacks was a lot worse than the Holocaust and therefore we should feel bad for the blacks, not the Jews.

After I read the Seven Verses monologue by Minister Conrad Mohammad, it made me agree with his argument. After all, slavery persecuted African and African-Americans for hundreds of years while the Holocaust only lasted half a decade. However, after reading the story about Isaac and the Holocaust, I don’t believe in Mohammad’s argument as much. The usage of a personal story to describe the Holocaust evokes the human emotion of empathy and touched me on a much more emotional level than Mohammad’s fact based argument. The image of Isaac going into the gas chamber after the people had died and seeing his wife and children sent shivers up and down my spine.

I have read my syllabus and accept the terms of the course.