http://www.whats-your-sign.com/symbolism-of-water.html
Can you guys see the connection between this article and Toni Morrison's Beloved?
It's pretty obvious. That's right, H20! As mentioned by Mr. Beddingfield this novel is drowned in water; figuratively speaking, of course. There's Sethe giving birth and Beloved coming out from a stream. Then there's Paul D escaping from a prison in Georgia because the rain freed him from the underground box he was locked in. Beloved also drinks alot of water when she first appears in the novel and Sethe's mother threw all of her children overboard except for her. Water, water, and more water!
The title of the article that I chose is called, "Symbolism of Water". It basically states that water is a universal undertone of purity and fertility. Furthermore, it also symbolizes one's subconscious, reflection, renewal, blessing, and life considering that 70% of our body is made up of water. This literary archetype has more one than just one specific meaning in this novel; it, alone, has many. In essence, water can be a sort of medium in which we travel back and forth from past to present and birth to death. Circle of life sort of thing going on here.
This article provided me with a more clear and concise definition of water in the literary world thus improving my understanding of this novel. I chose this topic because it's a major aspect in Beloved and because it was the first one that popped into my mind, of course. Oh and for the record, it's raining outside or thunder storming I should say.
Oh, the irony.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
"The Past Never Dies" CHOOSE SONG
If the past were to just die, then we wouldn't be able to gradually become the person that we are now. We are who we are today because of our past. It has, in a sense, molded us into ourselves; into our skin. Our past is us.
Although the past is, well, in the past it continues to live on in the form of our memories. That moment in our lives may have already passed by, but it's remnants will forever remain and it is nearly impossible to remove it from history.
For Sethe, her past seems to be colliding with her present. There's a lot of flashbacks that goes on in this novel made almost undistinguishable by Morrison. We, the readers, don't even realize that its a flashback until we're back in the present again. This type of syntax contributes to the idea of Sethe's selflessness. As much as she tries to repress her memories of the past, she only seems to be getting closer and closer to its confrontation; the unexpected arrival of Beloved. In my opinion she is Sethe's past. Not only is she identifiable with Sethe's first born girl (whose now dead), she also effortlessly gets her to share stories about her past that she thought she was already erased from her mind. This just proves the point that the past can not truly die since it still existed in her subconsciousness. And just for the record the past can't die because it is not a living thing in the first place. Haha, take that!
As for the Piano Lesson the past obviously still lives on in the form of ghosts. The whole book (to me) was about the past. The piano was the family's legacy and it was a battle against that versus cold, hard cash. Boy Willie resembled his father while Berniece her mother. Its almost as if they had lived on through these two. But enough about that, this "novel" is nothing compared to Morrison's Beloved.
Just because you can't go back and change it doesn't mean that its not there. Oh, its there all right.
... Forever.
Although the past is, well, in the past it continues to live on in the form of our memories. That moment in our lives may have already passed by, but it's remnants will forever remain and it is nearly impossible to remove it from history.
For Sethe, her past seems to be colliding with her present. There's a lot of flashbacks that goes on in this novel made almost undistinguishable by Morrison. We, the readers, don't even realize that its a flashback until we're back in the present again. This type of syntax contributes to the idea of Sethe's selflessness. As much as she tries to repress her memories of the past, she only seems to be getting closer and closer to its confrontation; the unexpected arrival of Beloved. In my opinion she is Sethe's past. Not only is she identifiable with Sethe's first born girl (whose now dead), she also effortlessly gets her to share stories about her past that she thought she was already erased from her mind. This just proves the point that the past can not truly die since it still existed in her subconsciousness. And just for the record the past can't die because it is not a living thing in the first place. Haha, take that!
As for the Piano Lesson the past obviously still lives on in the form of ghosts. The whole book (to me) was about the past. The piano was the family's legacy and it was a battle against that versus cold, hard cash. Boy Willie resembled his father while Berniece her mother. Its almost as if they had lived on through these two. But enough about that, this "novel" is nothing compared to Morrison's Beloved.
Just because you can't go back and change it doesn't mean that its not there. Oh, its there all right.
... Forever.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Benchmarks Are So NOT My Thing
.. So why did almost all students miss questions 4, 7, 9, 13, 21, 24, & 54?
Number 4: When I read this question during the benchmark, it really made no sense to me (partially because I was rushing). I chose answer 'E' because I saw the words art and nature; two things the passage was about. Looking back on it, however, the correct answer 'D' makes more sense because it was a roundabout way of simply saying Oxford borrowed that street's name. The question asks us to give a reason to why a character might call a line "vilely phrased". The vocabulary used tripped me up a bit and I didn't thoroughly look through all of the answer choices.
Number 7: The question itself didn't confuse me as did lines 51-53. I actually understood this question. I just didn't exactly know how to express my thought so I chose 'D' instead of 'A'. The question simply asks for the sentence's purpose. It was more tricky than it was difficult. It may have slightly been the vocabulary that messed me up as well.
Number 9: Now for this question, I actually got it right. YES! It asks us to compare Vivian's two speeches and find a similarity between the two. I found that it repeats the argument that the failures of nature inspire people to create (art & furniture). Many students may have gotten this question because instead of looking at both of the speeches, they only looked at one.
Number 13: Ahh comedy, of course! Obviously we have no sense of humor and that is why most of us got this one wrong. Seeing the answer now I can sort of see why it is what it is. I chose 'E' because it was a conversation between the two speakers, but I guess it wasn't witty. A closer reading of answer choice 'C', however, does make more sense because Vivian's viewpoints of nature is indeed paradoxical inversions of conventional viewpoints. I'll just blame the "comedy" aspect of the question for messing me up, lol.
Number 21: Oh look, grammar! I remember going back to this question and just guessing on it, but I knew it had something to do with the word lift so 1 point for me. This question asks us for the function of a word. It's difficult because we have to repeatedly go back and forth from the line to the answer choices to see what makes the most sense. After spending so much time on it, you just give it an educated guess and move on.
Number 24: Idio-what? I didn't have much clue to what this question was asking, but I guess 'A' wasn't much of an educated guess. Considering that it was a poem, I should have just chosen "meter" as my answer. I know for a fact that almost everyone got this one wrong because of that word: idiosyncratic.
Number 54: I have no good reason for getting this one wrong besides the fact that I panicked at having 15 seonds left and just randomly marked something that looked right. I dislike the way those questions are phrased anyways: What BESTS describes Joe's speech? With that being said, there's always two choices that seems to be right.
My goals for the rest of the semester are as follows:
For the Benchmark, I plan to go through and review the last two ones that we've taken so far one by one. I'm also going to try to look for some online tools to help me and attend tutorial if my schedule permits. Maybe I'll even read a passage and try to answer the questions 3-5 times a week. Build up some stamina for these things!
For the essays, I plan on reviewing notes that you have previously given us on how to score a '9'. I'm going to look over the tone sheet, literary devices, etc. I also want to try to be able to look at random prompts and be able to spot specific ideas in it, but also tie it to one big one as well. I'll read some of my other classmate's essays and compare them with mine.
Azian student must get uh duh A plus plus in class or no rice uh fo u!
Number 4: When I read this question during the benchmark, it really made no sense to me (partially because I was rushing). I chose answer 'E' because I saw the words art and nature; two things the passage was about. Looking back on it, however, the correct answer 'D' makes more sense because it was a roundabout way of simply saying Oxford borrowed that street's name. The question asks us to give a reason to why a character might call a line "vilely phrased". The vocabulary used tripped me up a bit and I didn't thoroughly look through all of the answer choices.
Number 7: The question itself didn't confuse me as did lines 51-53. I actually understood this question. I just didn't exactly know how to express my thought so I chose 'D' instead of 'A'. The question simply asks for the sentence's purpose. It was more tricky than it was difficult. It may have slightly been the vocabulary that messed me up as well.
Number 9: Now for this question, I actually got it right. YES! It asks us to compare Vivian's two speeches and find a similarity between the two. I found that it repeats the argument that the failures of nature inspire people to create (art & furniture). Many students may have gotten this question because instead of looking at both of the speeches, they only looked at one.
Number 13: Ahh comedy, of course! Obviously we have no sense of humor and that is why most of us got this one wrong. Seeing the answer now I can sort of see why it is what it is. I chose 'E' because it was a conversation between the two speakers, but I guess it wasn't witty. A closer reading of answer choice 'C', however, does make more sense because Vivian's viewpoints of nature is indeed paradoxical inversions of conventional viewpoints. I'll just blame the "comedy" aspect of the question for messing me up, lol.
Number 21: Oh look, grammar! I remember going back to this question and just guessing on it, but I knew it had something to do with the word lift so 1 point for me. This question asks us for the function of a word. It's difficult because we have to repeatedly go back and forth from the line to the answer choices to see what makes the most sense. After spending so much time on it, you just give it an educated guess and move on.
Number 24: Idio-what? I didn't have much clue to what this question was asking, but I guess 'A' wasn't much of an educated guess. Considering that it was a poem, I should have just chosen "meter" as my answer. I know for a fact that almost everyone got this one wrong because of that word: idiosyncratic.
Number 54: I have no good reason for getting this one wrong besides the fact that I panicked at having 15 seonds left and just randomly marked something that looked right. I dislike the way those questions are phrased anyways: What BESTS describes Joe's speech? With that being said, there's always two choices that seems to be right.
My goals for the rest of the semester are as follows:
For the Benchmark, I plan to go through and review the last two ones that we've taken so far one by one. I'm also going to try to look for some online tools to help me and attend tutorial if my schedule permits. Maybe I'll even read a passage and try to answer the questions 3-5 times a week. Build up some stamina for these things!
For the essays, I plan on reviewing notes that you have previously given us on how to score a '9'. I'm going to look over the tone sheet, literary devices, etc. I also want to try to be able to look at random prompts and be able to spot specific ideas in it, but also tie it to one big one as well. I'll read some of my other classmate's essays and compare them with mine.
Azian student must get uh duh A plus plus in class or no rice uh fo u!
Monday, February 13, 2012
Go Pick On Someone Your Own Size!
The debate today turned out quite interesting. First and foremost I would like to point out the fact that you, Mr. Beddingfield, changed your position a tad bit today. On Friday you said that you were going for the book being banned from all schools and today you were leaning towards it being praised over other books by teaching it in a classroom setting. I feel as though the debate was just beginning to pick up and we weren't able to express all of our great ideas/points with the time given. It was especially difficult given the fact that everyone gathered their own information and we had a limited time to decipher which point would best represent our position. Plus, everyone was throwing ideas left and right so that sorta put a lot of pressure on us to represent the entire class as a whole. You, on the other hand, were able to represent yourself and all of your brilliant ideas independently making it much more easier and concise.
But if it makes you feel any better, you beat a bunch of teenagers in the debate.
To improve this activity in the future, I think that we should be allowed more time to review all of our ideas with our classmates. You should also not ease drop in our conversation prior to the debate. Oh and you should split the class in half instead. I find that more fair.
That is all.
That is all.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Literature has left me speechless
The review that I liked, enjoyed, and agreed with the most was the one by T.S. Eliot ... Obviously! And no, its not just because that was the article that I was assigned. I find that Eliot's perspective and ideas about the book was quite interesting and agreeable. For starters, it is a masterpiece. I mean think about it: A whole book was written just to argue if Huck, one of the characters in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, was black (Shelly Fisher Fishkin). That's pretty BOSS if you ask me!
Eliot does a great job with talking about all of the major aspects of the novel. He right away mentions the boy and the river (two key symbols) and states that they are what makes the book great. One of the key ideas that Eliot talked about that stood out to me was Huck's point of view. Twain wrote the novel so that the audience would see it through Huck's eyes. This did indeed give it a more realistic feel. His comparison of the two characters, Tom and Huck, were also quite interesting. Tom is said to have imagination while Huck has vision. This is the result of all the books that Tom has read and Huck's expedite to mature and think as an adult ("unlike other boys, he has to bear the responsibility of a man"). What I really loved about Eliot's article was when he characterized that Huck was a passive observer and Jim was a submissive sufferer. There are many instances in the novel where Huck would just sort of sit in the background when there's action going on and Jim suffering because of that. For example: Huck knew that the Duke and the Dauphin were not who they claimed to be and were very malicious people. However, he just went with the flow and that eventually led to Jim being sold to Silas Phelps. Eliot also talks about how Twain's way of writing lets you experience the river rather than just hear about it. It is a "dictator to the raft/steamboat" that controls the voyage of Huck and Jim. He concludes the article by stating that the novel's ending simply just disappears. There's no tragic or happy ending, it just ends with "I been there before." This reinforces the idea of letting people judge things for themselves similiar to how Huck allows the world to judge him rather than he judge it himself.
I've come to the conclusion that this novel is indeed a masterpiece. I'm with all of the critics out there that have positively commented on it! Yes it has been a century long controversial novel, but I think that's what's so great about it. There are so many formed opinions, ideas, and views of this novel from so many great literary people that it just can't be ignored. When Twain wrote this book, we can all assume that he did not intend for it to become such a hit as it has. Like Huck, his novel was quite innocent and he wrote it the way that HE believed a child would have given the same circumstances.
Just remember that at the end of the day, it is just a book. Go easy on the guy! He's dead for god's sake, he no longer has a voice. Two thumbs up for the awesome packet that Mr. Beddginfield has put together for us. I'm overwhelmed by all these mind blowing reviews that I no longer have anything to say.
Eliot does a great job with talking about all of the major aspects of the novel. He right away mentions the boy and the river (two key symbols) and states that they are what makes the book great. One of the key ideas that Eliot talked about that stood out to me was Huck's point of view. Twain wrote the novel so that the audience would see it through Huck's eyes. This did indeed give it a more realistic feel. His comparison of the two characters, Tom and Huck, were also quite interesting. Tom is said to have imagination while Huck has vision. This is the result of all the books that Tom has read and Huck's expedite to mature and think as an adult ("unlike other boys, he has to bear the responsibility of a man"). What I really loved about Eliot's article was when he characterized that Huck was a passive observer and Jim was a submissive sufferer. There are many instances in the novel where Huck would just sort of sit in the background when there's action going on and Jim suffering because of that. For example: Huck knew that the Duke and the Dauphin were not who they claimed to be and were very malicious people. However, he just went with the flow and that eventually led to Jim being sold to Silas Phelps. Eliot also talks about how Twain's way of writing lets you experience the river rather than just hear about it. It is a "dictator to the raft/steamboat" that controls the voyage of Huck and Jim. He concludes the article by stating that the novel's ending simply just disappears. There's no tragic or happy ending, it just ends with "I been there before." This reinforces the idea of letting people judge things for themselves similiar to how Huck allows the world to judge him rather than he judge it himself.
I've come to the conclusion that this novel is indeed a masterpiece. I'm with all of the critics out there that have positively commented on it! Yes it has been a century long controversial novel, but I think that's what's so great about it. There are so many formed opinions, ideas, and views of this novel from so many great literary people that it just can't be ignored. When Twain wrote this book, we can all assume that he did not intend for it to become such a hit as it has. Like Huck, his novel was quite innocent and he wrote it the way that HE believed a child would have given the same circumstances.
Just remember that at the end of the day, it is just a book. Go easy on the guy! He's dead for god's sake, he no longer has a voice. Two thumbs up for the awesome packet that Mr. Beddginfield has put together for us. I'm overwhelmed by all these mind blowing reviews that I no longer have anything to say.
Monday, February 6, 2012
The 5-Year-Old Screenwriter Of "Fast Five"
http://www.theonion.com/video/today-now-interviews-the-5yearold-screenwriter-of,20188/
This video is Today Now!'s interview of the 5-year-old-screenwriter of "Fast Five." Judging from it's title, you can already tell that this video is not entirely true or at least there's something fishy about it. Obviously Chris Morgan was not the real screenwriter of "Fast Five." He's a kindergartner for god's sake! This, however, pokes fun at the movie's simplicity. It may even be suggesting that the story line is so simple even a kid can write it when Jim says, "Now I understand that the movie pretty much stays 100% true to your original script." Note that it says he spent a whole DAY working on the script which is written in crayon ... (cue laughter) Hahaha! Tracy even asks when Chris was writing this were there certain elements that he wanted to include. He replies with, "I want the cars to drive fast and some to explode." Wow, what a complex idea. (See what I did there? Haha!) She then proceeds to talk about the return of Jordana Brewster in which Chris replies "She's a girl and she likes to kiss so she doesn't play with the cars, but sometimes she does; mostly just the boys." She comments by saying, "All the female characters are so strong!" This part of the video pokes fun at how woman are portrayed in this movie and their subordinate roles to men. They are basically just a bunch of "boy toys" next to cars. Next, Jim asks Chris is there any chance that he'll be seeing another Fast & Furious sequel to which Chris replies, "Yes, 600!" Now c'mon guys, what movie have you seen has 600 sequels!? Quite frankly, that's ridiculous impossible. The point they're trying to get at is that there's one too many sequels as if there's no end to it. And before the interview is over, he ends up falling asleep in his chair.
You can pretty much tell that this video is faux from the tone of the speaker's voice. For me, I sensed the sarcasm when they were appraising the movie and talking about how "great" it was. There was also some over-exaggeration which sealed the deal. Oh and did you guys pay attention to the yellow box at the bottom of the screen while the interview was going on? Um, so sarcastic! Instead of coming out and saying how they really feel, they made this video. "Why?" you must ask. Well for starters it's freaking hilarious! Way better than sitting here listening to someone rant about something. On a more serious level though, comedy is a great median for authors to connect with their audiences. By bringing down the seriousness of the subject, it is easier for the audience to relate to and take in the information presented.
This video is Today Now!'s interview of the 5-year-old-screenwriter of "Fast Five." Judging from it's title, you can already tell that this video is not entirely true or at least there's something fishy about it. Obviously Chris Morgan was not the real screenwriter of "Fast Five." He's a kindergartner for god's sake! This, however, pokes fun at the movie's simplicity. It may even be suggesting that the story line is so simple even a kid can write it when Jim says, "Now I understand that the movie pretty much stays 100% true to your original script." Note that it says he spent a whole DAY working on the script which is written in crayon ... (cue laughter) Hahaha! Tracy even asks when Chris was writing this were there certain elements that he wanted to include. He replies with, "I want the cars to drive fast and some to explode." Wow, what a complex idea. (See what I did there? Haha!) She then proceeds to talk about the return of Jordana Brewster in which Chris replies "She's a girl and she likes to kiss so she doesn't play with the cars, but sometimes she does; mostly just the boys." She comments by saying, "All the female characters are so strong!" This part of the video pokes fun at how woman are portrayed in this movie and their subordinate roles to men. They are basically just a bunch of "boy toys" next to cars. Next, Jim asks Chris is there any chance that he'll be seeing another Fast & Furious sequel to which Chris replies, "Yes, 600!" Now c'mon guys, what movie have you seen has 600 sequels!? Quite frankly, that's ridiculous impossible. The point they're trying to get at is that there's one too many sequels as if there's no end to it. And before the interview is over, he ends up falling asleep in his chair.
You can pretty much tell that this video is faux from the tone of the speaker's voice. For me, I sensed the sarcasm when they were appraising the movie and talking about how "great" it was. There was also some over-exaggeration which sealed the deal. Oh and did you guys pay attention to the yellow box at the bottom of the screen while the interview was going on? Um, so sarcastic! Instead of coming out and saying how they really feel, they made this video. "Why?" you must ask. Well for starters it's freaking hilarious! Way better than sitting here listening to someone rant about something. On a more serious level though, comedy is a great median for authors to connect with their audiences. By bringing down the seriousness of the subject, it is easier for the audience to relate to and take in the information presented.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
[Insert clever title here]
Dear Mark Twain,
Although I've heard a lot about you, I haven't read any of your novels up until now. I must say that you are indeed an excellent writer. Your novel Huckleberry Finn is quite an impressive piece of work. It comes off as a simple story about a boy named Huck and his adventures down a river, but it is sooo much deeper than that (as expected). Props to you for creating layers upon layers upon layers of symbols, themes, and motifs in this novel. Its so "deep" that I don't know what to do with it or where to start. Well, maybe I do ..
So I know you've probably been asked this a lot, but what really motivated you to write a novel such as this one using the language that you did? Moreover, what is your personal take on the "N" word? It is easy to see how this novel can become the center of controversy amongst readers and writers, but more props to you for being different and really challenging the literary world. I mean someone had to do it (eventually). Anywho, back to the novel.
I must say, so far so good. Although the dialect gets a little hard to read sometimes, it really puts a nice touch to the novel. I really like the concept that you have going on as well; how Huck and Jim (two totally different classes of people) are running away from their problems by traveling down the river of freedom together. They both have their own problems and reasons for running away, but as they spend more and more time together on the raft it seems to me as though they've come together as one. As if to say that they're not that different from each other at all. This leads me to think of the raft as a symbol of unity. See?? Now THAT'S deep!
Other opinions about Huckleberry Finn, hmm .. Well I kind of also feel as though it's a bit contradicting. Or at least Huck is. There's constant battles between what's good, bad, right, wrong, so on and so forth. It really gets me thinking about what is the right thing to do? For example, turn Jim in because (according to society) that's the right thing to do or keep him because he's my friend. No kid should have to make decisions like that, but Huck was forced to which brings about his more mature side. From pulling pranks on Jim to finally standing up for what he believe is right, Huck has really grown as a character which makes the novel a Bildungsroman. Your characters are undoubtedly very round.
As far as criticism is concerned, I sort of feel like certain events in the novel were "staged". What are the odds of the dauphin encountering someone who talks about a recently deceased man leaving behind a large lump sum of money? And what are the odds that he has sent for his two brothers that lives in a different country? It's far too coincidental to my liking. And the way the two con artists pull off their tricks so easily ... What is this, the tragedy of Othello!? Hahaha. No, but overall I'm really enjoying your novel. I'm so looking forward to writing more blogs about you and your novel. Thanks man.
Sincerely,
Sandy Nguyen
Although I've heard a lot about you, I haven't read any of your novels up until now. I must say that you are indeed an excellent writer. Your novel Huckleberry Finn is quite an impressive piece of work. It comes off as a simple story about a boy named Huck and his adventures down a river, but it is sooo much deeper than that (as expected). Props to you for creating layers upon layers upon layers of symbols, themes, and motifs in this novel. Its so "deep" that I don't know what to do with it or where to start. Well, maybe I do ..
So I know you've probably been asked this a lot, but what really motivated you to write a novel such as this one using the language that you did? Moreover, what is your personal take on the "N" word? It is easy to see how this novel can become the center of controversy amongst readers and writers, but more props to you for being different and really challenging the literary world. I mean someone had to do it (eventually). Anywho, back to the novel.
I must say, so far so good. Although the dialect gets a little hard to read sometimes, it really puts a nice touch to the novel. I really like the concept that you have going on as well; how Huck and Jim (two totally different classes of people) are running away from their problems by traveling down the river of freedom together. They both have their own problems and reasons for running away, but as they spend more and more time together on the raft it seems to me as though they've come together as one. As if to say that they're not that different from each other at all. This leads me to think of the raft as a symbol of unity. See?? Now THAT'S deep!
Other opinions about Huckleberry Finn, hmm .. Well I kind of also feel as though it's a bit contradicting. Or at least Huck is. There's constant battles between what's good, bad, right, wrong, so on and so forth. It really gets me thinking about what is the right thing to do? For example, turn Jim in because (according to society) that's the right thing to do or keep him because he's my friend. No kid should have to make decisions like that, but Huck was forced to which brings about his more mature side. From pulling pranks on Jim to finally standing up for what he believe is right, Huck has really grown as a character which makes the novel a Bildungsroman. Your characters are undoubtedly very round.
As far as criticism is concerned, I sort of feel like certain events in the novel were "staged". What are the odds of the dauphin encountering someone who talks about a recently deceased man leaving behind a large lump sum of money? And what are the odds that he has sent for his two brothers that lives in a different country? It's far too coincidental to my liking. And the way the two con artists pull off their tricks so easily ... What is this, the tragedy of Othello!? Hahaha. No, but overall I'm really enjoying your novel. I'm so looking forward to writing more blogs about you and your novel. Thanks man.
Sincerely,
Sandy Nguyen
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
To Be Or Not To Be
As the novel progresses, Huck and Jim also progresses (down the river, that is). It seems to me as though with every pit stop that they make, we are placed in scenarios in which we unravel more and more of Huck as a person. It's almost as if layers are being added onto his character as he journeys down the river. The river is a symbol within itself. For Huck and Jim, it represents a path towards freedom. However, all the situations that they've encountered so far has been negative and seems to only get worse with every pit stop they make. This novel reminds me of Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" and how the Congo River was the key to Africa for the Europeans.
Although the duke and the dauphin appear to just be comical characters on the surface of the novel, I picked up a deeper reading from them. First off, they aren't necessarily what we consider "good people." They lie, cheat, steal, and rip people off for their money. Speaking of "ripping people off" .. When the two attempts to put on a nice show called the "Shaksperean Revival" it fails miserably so they end up putting on two, short shows and running off with the money the third time around. I took this scene as them trying to make money the moral way which doesn't work out so they end up turning back to their old, thieving ways. This leads to the fact that nearly everything and/or everyone that Huck encounters so far has been portrayed negatively; this possibly depicts the hardships of life.
A guy that acts as a drunk wanting to ride on a horse turns out to be a performer in the circus. Can this be a depiction of how thin the line is between what's real and what's fake? Oh and what about the man, Sherburn, who shoots an innocent drunk? His actions seem to be unvigilant, but his mind seems to be very bright judging from his thoughtful speeches. It's all so contradicting and hypocritical; a constant battle between good and bad, right and wrong.
Confused yet? Because everyone is this novel seems to be! The fact that the duke and the dauphin use the death of Peter Wilks to collect money shows us how morally messed up society really is. It presents to us a "new low" as if the novel isn't messed enough as it is already.
Although the duke and the dauphin appear to just be comical characters on the surface of the novel, I picked up a deeper reading from them. First off, they aren't necessarily what we consider "good people." They lie, cheat, steal, and rip people off for their money. Speaking of "ripping people off" .. When the two attempts to put on a nice show called the "Shaksperean Revival" it fails miserably so they end up putting on two, short shows and running off with the money the third time around. I took this scene as them trying to make money the moral way which doesn't work out so they end up turning back to their old, thieving ways. This leads to the fact that nearly everything and/or everyone that Huck encounters so far has been portrayed negatively; this possibly depicts the hardships of life.
A guy that acts as a drunk wanting to ride on a horse turns out to be a performer in the circus. Can this be a depiction of how thin the line is between what's real and what's fake? Oh and what about the man, Sherburn, who shoots an innocent drunk? His actions seem to be unvigilant, but his mind seems to be very bright judging from his thoughtful speeches. It's all so contradicting and hypocritical; a constant battle between good and bad, right and wrong.
Confused yet? Because everyone is this novel seems to be! The fact that the duke and the dauphin use the death of Peter Wilks to collect money shows us how morally messed up society really is. It presents to us a "new low" as if the novel isn't messed enough as it is already.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)