Maybe i'll go on asos instead of doing this...
Ok no I have no money anyway.
PUSS. in boots!
So this narrator is the first male one, and he comes across to start with as arrogant and sex-driven. I wonder what Carter could have meant by that? He seems to be smart though and comes up with schemes to help his master, but actually the the big plan of the story is thought up by a girl, though Puss takes credit for it. It's as if Carter felt bad about not letting men have their say in the book, but couldn't bring herself to be nice about it.
The characters in this one are based on the Italian Comedia dell'Arte. The cats represent the harlequin and the colombina as they are poor but witty and manage to get their own way in the end. The Pantaleone obviously fills the role of the Pantalone, as the old, greedy man, but the hag also fills this role as the baddie. The man and the woman represent the lovers, defined by their desperate love for each other, and aiding no other purpose other than to create a scenario for the other characters to revolve around.
The woman is an interesting character because, although she is one of the passive lovers, she is not the passive, yielding woman you might expect her to be. She takes an active role in wanting to be rescued from her awful marriage (and from virginity). Like in previous stories such as The Tiger's Bride the woman steps up to the initiation of sex rather than submitting helplessly. This shows Carter's theme of strong women as equal to men in sexuality and everything else.
Sexuality itself in this story is much different to the other stories. It is portrayed as something to be laughed at and enjoyed, rather than something to indicate power and control, or ownership over someone. To begin with Puss views sex as some sort of 'cure' for love, perhaps indicating a belief that woman are just something to be used and disposed of. However this changes as the narrator falls in love with the other cat, and he starts to see that it is about mutual gain rather than male pleasure.
Goodbyeeee
Monday, 29 March 2010
Sunday, 28 March 2010
has it come to this?
That my sunday nights are so empty I choose to write a blog when I have a whole two days left to do it last minute?
How awful.
Oh well I'm here now.
I'm gonna do The Tiger's Bride and The Courtship of Mr. Lyon together cos I find the parallels and contrasts interesting.
Ok I'm not. I'm going to bed and finishing this tommorow...maybe.
Good morning, good morning! We haven't talked the whole night through but I have been thinking about lions and tigers.
I think the major contrast between these two is how the two narrators begin in terms of free will. In Mr Lyon the narrator, Beauty, is loving and obedient to her father, and goes willingly to the lion's house. However in Tiger's Bride the narrator is disgusted by her father's actions and by the beast himself, at his request to see her naked.
However both narrators end the story by willingly loving the beast. In Mr. Lyon is he revealed to be a man, and in Tiger's Bride the narrator reveals her inner beast. I think both these endings portray the message that noone has to submit to anyone, not women to men or the other way around, but that we are all the same underneath.
Obviously both these texts are interpretations of the fairytale Beauty and the Beast, and I like the way Carter has used elements of the fairytale genre in each. In both Mr Lyon and Tiger's Bride the family in question has a recently lowered status and are looking to get it back, which i seem to find is often the case in tellings of fairytales. Another fairytale concept is the easy acceptance of the abnormal, like the father's lack of acknowledgement at a dog that wears jewels in Mr Lyon.
Right...yeah I'm gonna stop now.
How awful.
Oh well I'm here now.
I'm gonna do The Tiger's Bride and The Courtship of Mr. Lyon together cos I find the parallels and contrasts interesting.
Ok I'm not. I'm going to bed and finishing this tommorow...maybe.
Good morning, good morning! We haven't talked the whole night through but I have been thinking about lions and tigers.
I think the major contrast between these two is how the two narrators begin in terms of free will. In Mr Lyon the narrator, Beauty, is loving and obedient to her father, and goes willingly to the lion's house. However in Tiger's Bride the narrator is disgusted by her father's actions and by the beast himself, at his request to see her naked.
However both narrators end the story by willingly loving the beast. In Mr. Lyon is he revealed to be a man, and in Tiger's Bride the narrator reveals her inner beast. I think both these endings portray the message that noone has to submit to anyone, not women to men or the other way around, but that we are all the same underneath.
Obviously both these texts are interpretations of the fairytale Beauty and the Beast, and I like the way Carter has used elements of the fairytale genre in each. In both Mr Lyon and Tiger's Bride the family in question has a recently lowered status and are looking to get it back, which i seem to find is often the case in tellings of fairytales. Another fairytale concept is the easy acceptance of the abnormal, like the father's lack of acknowledgement at a dog that wears jewels in Mr Lyon.
Right...yeah I'm gonna stop now.
Tuesday, 9 March 2010
im shutting the door on the chamber now
Like the chamber of secrets. I feel like reading Harry Potter. If only there was as much innuendo in it as there is in The Bloody Chamber.
So I finished last time on the character of the marquis. What a tw*t he was. A much nicer example of a man is the piano tuner. I won't go into detail on him cos I did a whole labour of love on him last week. Basically he rocks despite his blindness. Carter is widening access here. Nice one. Except the narrator doesn't need any wider access cos she's a ssshhhllaaagg. JOKES don't lynch me feminists (rosie f).
Anyway with the whole feminism thing, the character of the mother is a hugely powerful one. The other powerful figure in the story, the marquis, is a symbol of corruption and evil, whereas the mother's power is wholly good and admirable. From the very start we are aware that the narrator emulates her mother, and she is shown as strong and courageous, having shot tigers and fought pirates, even though those seem the kind of stories we are told as children which may not actually be true. My mum is weird like this. She used to tell us stories and change all the male heroes into female ones. Hence my confusion at seeing the film of the snowman...i was sure it should be the snowoman. Regardless, this mother figure actually is as powerful and wise as she seems. Her 'mother's intuition' tingles when she talks on the phone to the narrator. Because of course crying at gold bath taps means your daughter's husband is about to murder her. Duh. She rides in and saves the day. She is a great example of a powerful woman but I dislike the way she is portrayed as masculine, as if a woman has to be manly to be strong.
Another feminism thing is the 'shame' the narrator mentions at the end. I think this refers to shame at being a weak woman, having submitted to her husband's will, and accepting his decision to murder her. That's just insane. I would be ashamed of that. The narrator is comparing herself to her mother, who is powerful and independant, traits the narrator doesn't show.
I did have more to say but I'm hungry and my genius is spent.
So I finished last time on the character of the marquis. What a tw*t he was. A much nicer example of a man is the piano tuner. I won't go into detail on him cos I did a whole labour of love on him last week. Basically he rocks despite his blindness. Carter is widening access here. Nice one. Except the narrator doesn't need any wider access cos she's a ssshhhllaaagg. JOKES don't lynch me feminists (rosie f).
Anyway with the whole feminism thing, the character of the mother is a hugely powerful one. The other powerful figure in the story, the marquis, is a symbol of corruption and evil, whereas the mother's power is wholly good and admirable. From the very start we are aware that the narrator emulates her mother, and she is shown as strong and courageous, having shot tigers and fought pirates, even though those seem the kind of stories we are told as children which may not actually be true. My mum is weird like this. She used to tell us stories and change all the male heroes into female ones. Hence my confusion at seeing the film of the snowman...i was sure it should be the snowoman. Regardless, this mother figure actually is as powerful and wise as she seems. Her 'mother's intuition' tingles when she talks on the phone to the narrator. Because of course crying at gold bath taps means your daughter's husband is about to murder her. Duh. She rides in and saves the day. She is a great example of a powerful woman but I dislike the way she is portrayed as masculine, as if a woman has to be manly to be strong.
Another feminism thing is the 'shame' the narrator mentions at the end. I think this refers to shame at being a weak woman, having submitted to her husband's will, and accepting his decision to murder her. That's just insane. I would be ashamed of that. The narrator is comparing herself to her mother, who is powerful and independant, traits the narrator doesn't show.
I did have more to say but I'm hungry and my genius is spent.
That bloody Bloody Chamber
Hiiiiii long time no write. Not that anyone reads this i shouldn't really feel guilty. It's not like my blog has feelings.
Um.
Right.
Well.
Ok yeah The Bloody Chamber was a very interesting story to study. I found that all the way through I was anticipating the next sentence's meaning and looking forward to all the hilarious hidden meanings in it. It's like the whole story had several dimensions to it, not just the words you were reading.
Sheeeees electric. Sorry i love this song.
What was i saying. Ggggguyes. Dimensions.
For example, at the beginning you are thrown straight into a big ole bucket of fallic imagery. The story starts on the train which has 'great pistons ceaselessly thrusting' carrying her 'away from girlhood'. You'd have to be a bit simple not to catch those neon flashing signs saying 'SEX'. This sort of helps to illustrate the relationship our narrator is starting, and as we get further into the story it seems that the most important thing to the marquis is the sex. This is in contrast to the only other marriage we are told about in the story, that of the narrator's parents. What we see there is that the mother experienced love for whom she 'gladly, scandalously, defiantly beggared herself for'.
The narrator has done the oppsite here, fallen for the wealth the marquis radiates, and although she never actually says she is marrying him for his money, it is insinuated. Firstly, instead of suggesting her mother should be happy that she is in love, the girl thinks she should be more grateful for the money: 'as if it was with reluctance that she might at last banish the spectre of poverty from...our meagre table.' Also the girl is constantly obsessing over the gifts the marquis has given her, and the castle they are going to live in: 'The faery solitude of the place, with its turrets of misty blue, its courtyard, its spiked gate...' This description has huge resonance of fairytales, a childish tradition suggesting the narrator's naivety. It is also interesting that all the parts of the castle she mentions play a part in her near death - the courtyard where he will behead her, the gate that will lift to let him (and her mother) in to find her, and the sea that will almost cut her off from being saved.
Another dimension to the story are the hugely unsubtle references to death that deeply hint at the direction the story is taking. Again, within the very opening of the story we are being made to think about death. The narrator describes marriage as 'the unguessable country'. Traditionally the unknown is reserved for death. This particular imagery is closely related to Shakespeare's depiction of death in Hamlet as 'The undiscovered country from whose bourn/ No traveller returns'. It can't be a coincidence that Carter chose that image to portray marriage.
I can't believe im contemplating writing more.
Im going to make a cup of tea.
Right. Hot caffeiny goodness.
The characters in The Bloody Chamber basically make up the whole story. Firstly, the narrator's character is developed throughout. She starts off, as i have explained, seeming naive and possibly slightly shallow. However she starts to gain a bit of strength from the moment she realizes what she has done in marrying the marquis. Her mixed disgust and desire at the marquis shows a slight growth in her character from the start: 'the old monocled lecher who examined her, limb by limb... Most pornographic of all confrontations. And so my purchaser unwrapped his bargain.' The language here portrays the situation she is in as cheap and dirty, prostitution even.
This leads me to the character of the marquis. Never literally hopefully. He is primarily characterised by his title of marquis, 'the richest man in France' as he is described. This makes us automatically judge him. He is never named which separates him from the narrator and hence from the reader. He is said to be wearing a 'mask', which gives him a sinister sense of mystery. This mysteriousness is enhanced by his past. We are told about his past wives who have all tragically died. Oh. Wow. What could that possibly mean? All we seem to know about him for a very long time is that he is rich, has a lot of dead wives, and is a bit of a perv. It's not looking great so far is it really marqy? I think Carter immediately tries to make the reader dislike him, and so throughout the whole story there is a dramatic irony where we can tell what is going to happen to the narrator, and she only realizes when she finds the bloody chamber. Fool.
Ok guys the cybervibes are telling me you're bored so im gonna stop.
Peace Out.
Um.
Right.
Well.
Ok yeah The Bloody Chamber was a very interesting story to study. I found that all the way through I was anticipating the next sentence's meaning and looking forward to all the hilarious hidden meanings in it. It's like the whole story had several dimensions to it, not just the words you were reading.
Sheeeees electric. Sorry i love this song.
What was i saying. Ggggguyes. Dimensions.
For example, at the beginning you are thrown straight into a big ole bucket of fallic imagery. The story starts on the train which has 'great pistons ceaselessly thrusting' carrying her 'away from girlhood'. You'd have to be a bit simple not to catch those neon flashing signs saying 'SEX'. This sort of helps to illustrate the relationship our narrator is starting, and as we get further into the story it seems that the most important thing to the marquis is the sex. This is in contrast to the only other marriage we are told about in the story, that of the narrator's parents. What we see there is that the mother experienced love for whom she 'gladly, scandalously, defiantly beggared herself for'.
The narrator has done the oppsite here, fallen for the wealth the marquis radiates, and although she never actually says she is marrying him for his money, it is insinuated. Firstly, instead of suggesting her mother should be happy that she is in love, the girl thinks she should be more grateful for the money: 'as if it was with reluctance that she might at last banish the spectre of poverty from...our meagre table.' Also the girl is constantly obsessing over the gifts the marquis has given her, and the castle they are going to live in: 'The faery solitude of the place, with its turrets of misty blue, its courtyard, its spiked gate...' This description has huge resonance of fairytales, a childish tradition suggesting the narrator's naivety. It is also interesting that all the parts of the castle she mentions play a part in her near death - the courtyard where he will behead her, the gate that will lift to let him (and her mother) in to find her, and the sea that will almost cut her off from being saved.
Another dimension to the story are the hugely unsubtle references to death that deeply hint at the direction the story is taking. Again, within the very opening of the story we are being made to think about death. The narrator describes marriage as 'the unguessable country'. Traditionally the unknown is reserved for death. This particular imagery is closely related to Shakespeare's depiction of death in Hamlet as 'The undiscovered country from whose bourn/ No traveller returns'. It can't be a coincidence that Carter chose that image to portray marriage.
I can't believe im contemplating writing more.
Im going to make a cup of tea.
Right. Hot caffeiny goodness.
The characters in The Bloody Chamber basically make up the whole story. Firstly, the narrator's character is developed throughout. She starts off, as i have explained, seeming naive and possibly slightly shallow. However she starts to gain a bit of strength from the moment she realizes what she has done in marrying the marquis. Her mixed disgust and desire at the marquis shows a slight growth in her character from the start: 'the old monocled lecher who examined her, limb by limb... Most pornographic of all confrontations. And so my purchaser unwrapped his bargain.' The language here portrays the situation she is in as cheap and dirty, prostitution even.
This leads me to the character of the marquis. Never literally hopefully. He is primarily characterised by his title of marquis, 'the richest man in France' as he is described. This makes us automatically judge him. He is never named which separates him from the narrator and hence from the reader. He is said to be wearing a 'mask', which gives him a sinister sense of mystery. This mysteriousness is enhanced by his past. We are told about his past wives who have all tragically died. Oh. Wow. What could that possibly mean? All we seem to know about him for a very long time is that he is rich, has a lot of dead wives, and is a bit of a perv. It's not looking great so far is it really marqy? I think Carter immediately tries to make the reader dislike him, and so throughout the whole story there is a dramatic irony where we can tell what is going to happen to the narrator, and she only realizes when she finds the bloody chamber. Fool.
Ok guys the cybervibes are telling me you're bored so im gonna stop.
Peace Out.
Saturday, 9 January 2010
dracattack....what's this? oh yeah supereligion
That's supernatural and religion combined.
I can't believe I've resorted to English to avoid Chemistry. Epic fail.
Ummmmmm
well
We had how the novel portrays reiligion and superstition as separate things, whilst today we might view them as one in the same. Because of how we see it, it was hard to judge what was what in the story.
There's the obvious things like using garlic to ward off Dracula, and the blue flames supposing to signify the site of hidden gold. They're supernatural/stitious things.
And the obvious religious stuff like gender roles in men protecting the defenceless women, and holy commissions, also Quincey Morris sacrificing himself to save the world from evil, like our man Jesus.
But then, other stuff , apparently, was a bit more blurred. Like the use of the crucifix. Jonathan Harker originally dismisses the crucifix (or more specifically the rosary) as superstition. But then later on it becomes his only weapon and protection against the Count. Then, that also might be a distinction being made between the Anglican and Catholic Churches. The typically Anglican resort to Catholicism to save themselves.
Ok that's all. Back to...logical straightforward science.
I can't believe I've resorted to English to avoid Chemistry. Epic fail.
Ummmmmm
well
We had how the novel portrays reiligion and superstition as separate things, whilst today we might view them as one in the same. Because of how we see it, it was hard to judge what was what in the story.
There's the obvious things like using garlic to ward off Dracula, and the blue flames supposing to signify the site of hidden gold. They're supernatural/stitious things.
And the obvious religious stuff like gender roles in men protecting the defenceless women, and holy commissions, also Quincey Morris sacrificing himself to save the world from evil, like our man Jesus.
But then, other stuff , apparently, was a bit more blurred. Like the use of the crucifix. Jonathan Harker originally dismisses the crucifix (or more specifically the rosary) as superstition. But then later on it becomes his only weapon and protection against the Count. Then, that also might be a distinction being made between the Anglican and Catholic Churches. The typically Anglican resort to Catholicism to save themselves.
Ok that's all. Back to...logical straightforward science.
Monday, 7 December 2009
Draco vs. Van the man
Van Helsing would totally kick Drac's ass.
Ummmmmm well we looked at how they contrast each other, and also how they are reflected in each other. Because, really, they aren't total opposites. They're all one big happy family really.
Firstly, their contrasts. Dracula is seen to be evil: 'the evil smile as quickly passed into a cold stare'. And Van Helsing opposes this in his goodness: 'Van Hesling would, I know, do anything for me'. Also the Count puts on a facade of friendliness: 'Nay, Sir, you are my guest.' Whereas, Van Helsing's good will is real: 'all embracing sympathy', 'with such an infinate geniality'. In actual character they are each other's antithesis.
However, in their portrayal they are actually quite similar. They are both defined by their actions more than their words, as gothic heroes often are. For example Dracula never actually tells us he's a vampo, but Jonathan Harker sees him climb down the wall of the castle, and Mina sees a man we assume to Dracula bend over Lucy, presumably drinking her blood. Van Helsing is often shown to us through his actions for other characters. He performs all the operations for Lucy, even giving her his own blood, and the other characters come to see him, as we do, as a selfless man. They are both also foreign to the other characters as well as the contempory reader, though that comes to mean different things for the two characters. Their use of archaic language highlights their difference to the other characters. They are both intellectual and quick minded, and certainly both determined.
So we see that it is not just that their contrasts define Dracula and Van Helsing as antagonists, but their similar portrayals are what lead us to make comparisons between the two.
You're welcome x
Ummmmmm well we looked at how they contrast each other, and also how they are reflected in each other. Because, really, they aren't total opposites. They're all one big happy family really.
Firstly, their contrasts. Dracula is seen to be evil: 'the evil smile as quickly passed into a cold stare'. And Van Helsing opposes this in his goodness: 'Van Hesling would, I know, do anything for me'. Also the Count puts on a facade of friendliness: 'Nay, Sir, you are my guest.' Whereas, Van Helsing's good will is real: 'all embracing sympathy', 'with such an infinate geniality'. In actual character they are each other's antithesis.
However, in their portrayal they are actually quite similar. They are both defined by their actions more than their words, as gothic heroes often are. For example Dracula never actually tells us he's a vampo, but Jonathan Harker sees him climb down the wall of the castle, and Mina sees a man we assume to Dracula bend over Lucy, presumably drinking her blood. Van Helsing is often shown to us through his actions for other characters. He performs all the operations for Lucy, even giving her his own blood, and the other characters come to see him, as we do, as a selfless man. They are both also foreign to the other characters as well as the contempory reader, though that comes to mean different things for the two characters. Their use of archaic language highlights their difference to the other characters. They are both intellectual and quick minded, and certainly both determined.
So we see that it is not just that their contrasts define Dracula and Van Helsing as antagonists, but their similar portrayals are what lead us to make comparisons between the two.
You're welcome x
Lucy is sooo gonna die now
So...a few lessons ago we looked at chapter 11 and thought about the ways in which the beginning foreshadows Lucy's death.
Lucy herself writes things in her diary which relate to death for example she wishes it upon herself when she cannot sleep, comparing herself to Ophelia who, obviously kills herself: 'hoping for sleep, and lying like Ophelia in the play'. That's a bit stupid to be honest...to wish for death when you're already ill, like tempting fate right?
Also, Lucy's mother's action of removing the garlic from Lucy makes it clear to us she will have become worse overnight. The mother thinks she has helped Lucy which is sad because the dramatic irony for us is knowing it probably killed her.
Another presage of Lucy's death is the breakdown of Van Helsing: 'Then, for the first time in my life, I saw Van Helsing break down.' His composure throughout the book showed him to be a strong character, so to see him lose it now implies there is no hope for Lucy.
The repetition used in the writing seems to suggest hopelessness too: 'Again the operation; again the narcotic; again some return of colour to the ashy cheeks, and the regular breathing of healthy sleep.' This seems to be repeating something that they know hasn't worked in the past, and it is really just prolonging the inevitable.
Gutted for Lucy.
Lucy herself writes things in her diary which relate to death for example she wishes it upon herself when she cannot sleep, comparing herself to Ophelia who, obviously kills herself: 'hoping for sleep, and lying like Ophelia in the play'. That's a bit stupid to be honest...to wish for death when you're already ill, like tempting fate right?
Also, Lucy's mother's action of removing the garlic from Lucy makes it clear to us she will have become worse overnight. The mother thinks she has helped Lucy which is sad because the dramatic irony for us is knowing it probably killed her.
Another presage of Lucy's death is the breakdown of Van Helsing: 'Then, for the first time in my life, I saw Van Helsing break down.' His composure throughout the book showed him to be a strong character, so to see him lose it now implies there is no hope for Lucy.
The repetition used in the writing seems to suggest hopelessness too: 'Again the operation; again the narcotic; again some return of colour to the ashy cheeks, and the regular breathing of healthy sleep.' This seems to be repeating something that they know hasn't worked in the past, and it is really just prolonging the inevitable.
Gutted for Lucy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)