Knights: good gentlemen but killers in the same...

In "Murder in the Cathedral" by T. S. Elliot, the knights are responsible for the murder of Archbishop  Thomas Becket. It is debated whether or not the knights were acting on orders or if they went out on their own to murder the Archbishop. Elliot paints the scenes so that we must decide for our own whether or we as readers believe they followed orders or decided on their own to kill him. I personally feel the knights went out, on their own to follow what they wanted. To me, there is a sense of irony to this situation. This period of time was the height of the period of chivalry. These knights had to of been upstanding gentlemen in their duties to the people but in this case they go out and kill the Archbishop. It's hard for me to put These two together because the actions go against the way they were supposed to have behaved. It's the contrast to the play that gives it a dark edge. No one seems to be who they appear and the knights make this especially apparent in the play.

Oh Shakespeare, we meet again!

Sometimes I don't even want to pick up a book if the name Shakespeare is anywhere on the cover of on the pages within. Just thinking about reading it gives me a headache and a chore that I forgot to do pops back into my mind. I know what I'm saying right now is probably causing a few of you a headache but hey, that's why we have blogs! This way I can say what I feel and you can say what you  feel. Once we're done we can all join in a great big group hug! But before that let's chat about some of the plays I've read. Freshmen year I read A Midsummer's Night Dream, junior year I read King Lear, and this year as a senior I read Hamlet. Each play I waited until the very last minute to read them so maybe I don't have the basis to say that they weren't as fabulous as many people see his works as. To start, it's terrible trying to follow a play in a seeming foreign language and little knowledge of what's going on.
My taste in Shakespeare has been refined as I've read more of his things and been taught the intricacy of his writing and the brilliance or his nature. I have a greater appreciation for him now, as a senior in AP Lit than ever before. Maybe with time and more challenge I'll be able to find the joy on his works but I'm not so sure I'll ever be taken. I don't deny his brilliance and incredible knowledge throughout his plays but he isn't my all time favorite. Sorry if I offended anyone. Group hug now...?

Read this using your alter-ego...

Hello to my fellow Lana lovers! I can't help but greet you all with excitement as someone (meaning outside of our little AP class) commented on one of my previous posts, recognizing that my URL and blog name are both in honor of Lana. To those of you stumped who Lana even is, I'll leave a video link so you can follow it and be taken over by her power.  My apologies, this isn't a music blog!
You're probably all wondering what I meant by my title. I'm not responding to a book in this point. I'm instead responding to my view of literature in terms of how it changes are deepest knowledge of ourself whether we want it to or not. I myself find it impossible to read anything without identifying with a character whether that character fits who I show people daily or if it hits to a deeper place that not many know about. Literature is meant to evoke a sense of rebirth and have us hanging on to a world unlike our own.
I have a tip to anyone who feels they can't read a book because of length or contact. I'm not going to lie to you. I don't like reading that much but to help myself I place myself in the piece and find myself relating to a character. If there isn't a character I can equate to either myself or my alter ego I create a new one to help me follow through.
Okay, this turned into something more like a tangent than a coherent post about literature. All I'm trying to say is that characters speak to us so use their presence to enjoy yourself and submerge yourself into the reality of the piece. To all my other friends out there, have a happy day!

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cE6wxDqdOV0 

Everyone is bad

Being honest, I read this book because it was reviewed by the SAT committee for being a good big that will help expand the vocabulary that has been previously been found on the exam. It was the shortest book of the options I had so I bought it and began reading. I'm not into the particularly dark nature of this book but I was hoping to improve my verbal skills. I ruined it for myself by finding it the ending before I read the book. It was eerie and at parts I felt a disturbed sense about it. It was brutal and violent but I couldn't put it down. It was brilliant! Others usually offer a character in their novel that foils the protagonist. By doing this they expose the traits of the character in a deeper way because of the opposites that are shown. In this case, the characters, portrayed as being different people in every way down to their morals end up being the same person.

I enjoyed that the reader is offered two opposite characters that help to understand both of their purposes to the novel. Learning that Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are the same person shakes me. It's so easy in the end though to look at that the character as one person because each of us is bogged down with a different and immoral beast inside us. Whether we are aware of that or not is up to the person in question. Humans are not perfect but we aren't ravage beasts. It's the case of us needing to be good people but also free to have the ability to do as we which. I didn't take the violent message of the book but rather that as humans we must know who we are before a hidden desire of an identity comes out.

Those wonderful books you find by complete accident...

We have a reading day in Creative and Critical once a cycle and on the first one I forgot to get a book. Fearing that I would get into trouble for not having a book ready I quickly ran to Mrs. Healey's room to find something quick. I had little time but saw a book with Margaraet Atwood's name on the spine and I grabbed it. I didn't even read the name but later found it was The Penelopiad. I was excited because one of my favorite books is written by Atwood as well. Atwood is a feminist writer and emphasizes the importance of women in all aspects of all. In the book I'm currently reading she is shifting the view of the Illyiad to Odeseus' wife's view. His wife Penelope is recanting her life story as the wife of he famous hero and her point of view. Few authors go back and choose to write an Ancient Greek myth from the point of view of a woman. Atwood uses her own personal beliefs in the equality of women throughout her books. As a reader, I see her strong feminist approach and love the focus she keeps on strictly the women characters. So far, I'm loving the book and when I'm done I'll return it to you and hopefully find another one of Atwood's brilliant novels!

Remembering Stevie

Reading The Secret Agent I was immediately moved by Stevie's character. His disabilities have left himto the  care of his older sister, Winnie. It's not that she treats him poorly or neglects him but he isn't given the respect he deserves. My heart reaches out to Stevie. As the story progresses and the readers see into the dull life of Stevie I felt so bad for his character. Maybe it's just because I'm a girl and have emotions coming out of my ears, but reading and following the character of Stevie was very sad. His purpose in the story is debateable. Is he that important? Or does he serve as a symbol or stock character who serves as contrast to the evil in the story? He could be both but for this post I want to talk about his innocence and how it applies to the story and overall theme of the novel. He is this innocent, child-like character who has to be told to do everything but when to go to the bathroom. Stevie doesn't know what the outside world is and I have to think his emerging place in the outside world could only lead to disaster. I liked Stevie, as a a character he represented the innocence the other characters lacked. The irony though that the child-like character set off the bomb is almost too much. Perhaps my sympathy is clouding how I view Stevie but it was a loss and tragic event that he died. Whether it was out of irony, parallesim or anoth reason, Stevie's character was really important.

It's too far stretched

Today we discussed The Secret Agent and whether we viewed it as a comedy or as a tragedy. I honestly, find this novel to be a comedy. Aside from the terrible events leading up to Stevie's death, I don't see much else that is tragic. Verloc isn't a character I disliked but his presence was monotonous and didn't add much to the entirety of the book. And Winnie, a darling and caring sister and reasonably good character, had no real tie on my heart. Before the end, when the murder and deaths begin I was just annoyed with the writing and how little plot was developing. When I reached the end I was waiting for the end. It was all too planned, too expected. It was almost too much to have the story end with all of the characters dying. I wasn't a fan of the end of King Lear and in my mind the endings of the two pieces are the same. I couldn't feel sadness for anyone but Stevie and once the murder of Verloc and suicide of Winnie came about I wasn't impressed. There is also comical situations and dialogue throughout the book. In combination with the comical tone set throughout the book I couldn't take the end too harshly. It was just too much. I classified it as a comedy but understand why people believe its a tragedy. Feel free to respond if you have a different take.