The Invisible Man

I found this story to be a bit strange, because throughout the whole book we read about the Narrator's activities and what he is doing to try and change the way that blacks are treated and viewed. Then at the end we find out that it's all a fraud, not that the Narrator's efforts weren't honerable, but that the organization that he was part of wasn't. When the Narrator was attending college, he was unknowingly continuing to oppress his own people. He viewed himself as being above all other southern blacks like Trueblood, because he was in college and eventually going to make a difference. It just so happens that the Narrator is expelled from college immediately after he does the opposite of what Bledsoe and the college want him to. And then when he became a member of the Brotherhood they wanted to control his speeches and everything else that he did while a member of the organization. After being called a traitor and the death of what I would consider a friend, did it become clear to the Narrator that once again he was being manipulated to enforce oppression. I don't understand why the Narrator stayed underground/invisible for so long. In my opinion I think that he should have stayed underground/invisible until things calmed down in Harlem then emerged with the truth that organizations were keeping their power over the black community by truning the black community against itself. The Narrator had all the potential to be a great civil rights leader, but I feel that he was too much of a coward to come back into the spotlight. My final thought wonders where the Narrator was during the Civil Rights Movement? Why didn't he jump as the opportunity to change what his whole life up unitl the hiding was striving toward?

Ideaology and The House of the Spirits

"With one hand he encircled the child's neck. He felt the tickle of her braids against his wrist and squeezed ever so gently, aware that she was so tiny he could strangle her with very little effort. He wanted to do it, feel her writhing and kicking at his knees, squirming as she fought for air. He wanted to hear her moan and die in his arms." - Page 286

I guess that you could say that I can relate to this passage every once in a while. When living with my parents, I noticed that my younger brother tends to get nearly everything from my parents that I don't and never did. So in a sense I can relate to Esteban Garcia's desire to squeeze Alba's neck and choke her to death, because she was also half hispanic and related to Esteban Treuba, but unlike Alba, Esteban Garcia never recieved any of Esteban Treuba's attention, money, or even love. So I guess that at times I can relate to how Esteban Garcia feels, however I highly doubt that I would ever put my hands around my younger brother's neck and think about strangling him and feeling him kick in an attempt to escape my grasp. Esteban Garcia seems to have a few anger/curelty issues that he obviously recieves from Esteban Trueba.

Antigone

I enjoyed the part of the story that followed moral values over law. (the fact that Antigone buried her dead brother despite the fact that Creon declared that his body is to rot on the street and be consumed by the birds and beasts) I cannot say what I would do if I was in Antigone's situation however I strongly admire her choice and decision to stand by it. I feel that a proper burial is one of the most important things to do after someone dies. It is a huge disgrace for a body to be left to rot, it lowers humanity's level to that of a savage animal or beast.

I accidentally bought the wrong book and I felt the classical version, the one I read, to be more entertaining and practical than the Brecht version. In the classical version two brothers fued on who is to rule the city of Thebes and they kill eachother in the battle and then Creon dictates that the one's body is not to be buried but left on the street as an example for all those who oppose the previous and current rule of Thebes. And it leaves the impression that an act of moral atrocity leads to disaster for the city. I enjoyed the speech given by the blind man who was able to convince the Creon that if Antigone was put to death for buring her brother that the Gods would avenge her death upon Thebes. Before Creon could act, Antigone killed herself in her cell and Thebes is invaded by a neighboring city and that is the end of the book. I liked the simplicity in the play, there was a choice, a consequence, and a result.

Gregorio Cortez

It was semi-enjoyable to read about Gregorio Cortez. It has definately been the most biased work that we have read thus far in class. For example when Gregorio Cortez is compared with Jesus, because of what he supposedly did. Like when he knew that he was going to be betrayed and how he did nothing to alter it. And when he turned himself in because all of those in his life were suffering on his account. I'm sure that in real life Gregorio Cortez did some good things, but I don't believe that he was really as righteous as depicted in the story. With that in mind I wonder what actually did happen in the early 20th century on the Mexico U.S. boarder in Texas. I would guess that Cortez shot a sherriff because the sherriff shot his brother Juan. Who knows if Cortez shot the sherriff in the back or what. The part about Cortez taking on 300 men, that was cleary exaggerated or made up all together. However the point of the story is not to be accurate but instead instill national pride in the Mexican people. If one Mexican could stand up to the United States alone and win, that makes a good bedtime or campfire story for people to tell their children. It was all just a source of enterainment, which may be based on a true story but then again so are many movies that are made and we know how far they can stray from what actually happened.

Federico Garcia Lorca

I found Lorca's Blood Wedding to be for lack of a better word stolen. I mean the play was definately not plagerized or anything like that, however a lot of the themes and things that happened seem to be taken from other plays, mostly Shakespere. For instance, both men that are involved with the Bride end up dead and the Bride asks Mother to kill her so that's close enough. This is very common to Romeo and Juilet in that both Romeo and Mercutio die and then at the end Juliet ends up killing herself which is what the Bride begs Mother to do for her. The play was boring to read and I'm glad that it was short. Also I found Mother's attraction toward her own son a bit disturbing, but she was lonely so I forgave her.

I will admit that when it comes to a tragedy about lovers who aren't meant to be, there isn't much room for creativity. Dr. Sherwood also mentioned that in the past that most plays and tragedies did in fact borrow from eachother. It could just be very similar to what is done today where a movie is made and ten to twenty years later some other movie company is making a newer version with pretty much the same story that was originally filmed.

The Awakening by Kate Chopin

At the start of this novel I found myself sympathetic toward Edna. However as the novel progressed I found myself full of pity for Edna's friends. At first I thought that Edna was unhappy, and if she could have Robert she would be happy. That proved not to be the case in this novel. Edna was not happy and thought that if she were to get what she wanted that she would become happy. The only time that she appeared content was when she was alone. Even at the end of the book when she finally got Robert she left him and chose to be alone. I think that everyone else is most likely better off now that Edna is dead. They all went out of their way to appease her and none of them were ever successful for more than short moments of time.

At first I just thought that Mr. Pontellier was a bad husband, but now that I think about it I am able to realize that he did nothing wrong during the whole story, but instead all the problems arose from Edna herself. He didn't listen to Edna's father and put his foot down because he knew that it drove Edna's mother into the grave. Mr. Pontellier was a busy man and was required to spend most of his time away from his family, but he did his best to make up for it by constantly sending gifts. The whole time that he was away only once did Edna write to him. In my opinion he was a good Creole man and all the problems that arose were of Edna's doing.

The Yellow Wallpaper of Insanity?

I was positive that the wallpaper story was about women's sufferage. There were reoccurring accounts of male oppression within the story. I was absolutely convinced that the story was trying to convey that women were barred (behind wallpaper perhaps) by men, not allowed to make their own decisions, or live the lives they want to. It fit the time period of when women began to speak for themselves and the struggle to obtain "equal" rights was soon to follow. I thought that possilby this story was a discreet way to gain the attention of women trapped (behind wallpaper?) in similar situations.
However as class progressed we learned that the author's intentions were not so. The story did not have a deeper meaning and was just about insanity. However it went more along the lines of how odd mentalhealth practices were during that time. Which is not saying much because doctors would remove parts of people's brains in order to stop the so called insanity. After thinking about that it comes to no suprise that then doctors thought it best to completely isolate a depressed individual. Today the best way to treat someone with extreme depression is to get them socially involved, not allow them to sink into solitude, and encourage them to express their feelings. The narrator wasn't even adivised to express her feelings of why she was so depressed. The mere thought of that seems absurd today, however what will we think of our current practices years from now?

Fredrick Douglas

After reading Douglas's story I was able to understand better what a slaves life was like. Sure we've all read other stories about slavery and even seen movies that show the graphic details that were described in Douglas's writing. But unlike the other sources, Douglas is able to give me the mindset of a slave by allowing me to understand the thoughts and emotions that were associated with the horrible acts that occured. An example would be the knowing that the smallest unintentional infraction against the rules there were not always clear could result in a severe beating that would often be fatal.

Douglas does have a sense of authorship to his writing. He was there, he went through it, he survived it. These are the biggest factors that contribute to his ownership of the work. Like the discussion that was brought up in class referring to if the story was written by a white guy from Boston would we feel the same way about the piece. My response to that is not a chance. The fact that Douglas became literate and wrote his experiences shows power. If he worked so hard to be able to write, then his testamony must be worth comprehending. I do feel that Douglas shows ownership to his writing, because he was there, he was beaten, and he survived.