Impressions Of Walton...

Ok so we were told to blog on our impressions of Robert Walton, who is the sort of primary narrator for the story of Frankenstein, seeing as he recounts the story which he was told by Frankenstein.

Having read his first three letters I have many first impressions about Walton. He seems a very enthusiastic person, who is thirsty for knowledge and exploration. For example in his first letter he tells his sister how the his fortune has made his "day dreams become more fervent and vivid". He is obviously anticipating reaching his destination, as he is evidently on sea voyage. He displays quite a Romantic view to nature, with "the sun is for ever visible; its broad disk just skirting the horizon, and diffusing the perpetual splendour". He is quite elaborate in his descriptions, similar to Romantics writing near the time such as Coleridge. Indeed the 'Rime of the Ancient Mariner' is alluded to, and this Romantic view may have been a reflection of Shelley's husband's style of writing.
The writer's will for knowledge is also evident with "I may there discover the wondrous power which attracts the needle", it appears he is travelling to the North Pole. He has a clear goal and has a youthful excitement about him when he is talking of his adventures, e.g. "I feel my heart glow with an enthusiasm which elevates me to heaven". He also seems to have come from humble beginnings, for instance he shows he "My education was neglected yet I was passionately fond of reading", again showing his wish for information.

However, the writer also seems intimidated by the voyage that lies ahead, "heaven shower down blessings on you, and save me, that I may again testify my gratitude for all your love and kindness". At the end of his first three letters he always bids his sister farewell in case he should never see her again. The fact that such an apparently enthusiastic character even fears the voyage ahead of him shows a sense of foreboding.

In his second letter he seems less happy and talks of time going slowly and of the heavy "frost and snow" he also expresses his loneliness to his sister and he want for a friend. For example he feels he is too sophisticated in his ideas to befriend his fellow sailors and yet too uneducated, describing himself as "more illiterate than many school-boys of fifteen". He also confirms his Romantic outlook, declaring his "love for the marvelous".

His third letter is short and appears rushed, and hastily fills his sister in on his safety and to think of him and hope for the continuation of their good fortune.

So the writers appears intellectual, a Romantic, anxious to discover new things and he wants a mate...
Enter Frankenstein.  

5 Things I Learnt...

Here are the 5 things I learnt over the last 2 weeks.

1. Morality plays follow the fate of an individual in which the main character is supposed to represent all mankind. They're normally about saving your soul and avoiding temptation etc, but are less bible focused and try to engage the audience more.
2. Copernicus said the sun, not earth, was the centre of the universe. 
3. Friars were religious men who traveled. =P
4. Styx, Acheron and Phlegethon are all rivers of the underworld.
5. To put horns on a mans head was a Shakespearean insult which suggested the man's wife was sleeping around.

Can't wait to use all this in the exam!! Oh, wait.....

Faustus' Portrayal, Act 2 Scene 3

Helloooo. So in our last English Lit lesson we read through Act 2 Scene 3 of Doctor Faustus, which included some amazing reading by me as Pride. =P

I'm blogging about the portrayal of Faustus himself in this scene, for example is he supposed to be fearful and angry or happy and playful when the seven deadly sins are putting on a wee show for him. A will also talk about how his character develops further. 

 Firstly the scene starts with Faustus apparently intent on repenting to god and renouncing Mephistopheles. "When I behold the heavens, then I repent and curse thee, wicked Mephistopheles". Faustus seems to now understand the idea of hell being everywhere and he can't handle it. It is strange and ironic that he blames Mephistopheles, when in fact he was brutally honest with Faustus about hell and even seemed to be warning him. So Marlowe portrays Faustus as a very changeable character, one who is stubborn and fickle. It is strange for the audience to see such a change in him, as in his previous scene he willingly finalised his agreement to sell his soul to the devil, yet now the first thing he declares is a wish to repent. Faustus then stated "I will renounce this magic and repent", again this is completely contradictory as it was the wish to gain knowledge of magic that drove Faustus in the first place. 

By declaring this, Faustus seems to summon the Good and Bad Angel back onto stage and, contrary to what I said could be possible in a previous blog entry, he appears to be able to see and hear them. He even interacts with them. The Good Angel assures Faustus that he still can repent and "god will pity" him. Whereas  the Evil Angel says "thou art a spirit, god cannot pity thee". This is interesting as maybe the reason Faustus can hear the angels now is because he is a spirit and is therefore beyond repenting. Faustus himself says "Who buzzeth in mine ears I am a spirit?". Although Faustus expresses wish to repent, he can't help but take the advice of the Evil Angel. "My heart's so hardened I cannot repent", this could be to symbollise that hell is controlling his decisions now, forcibly stopping him from repenting. So he goes from wanting to repent to declaring he cannot. Indeed another factor that seems to pull Faustus back from this, is his curiosity and thirst for knowledge.

He then argues with Mephistopheles as he isn't answering his questions sufficiently, he is merely repeating what Faustus already knows. As a result, Faustus then wishes to repent again, almost just to spite Mephistopheles. This is despite having resolutely said he never would earlier on in the scene. He says "Christ, my saviour, seek to save distressed Faustus' soul". However it is not god that comes to Faustus, but Lucifer, Beelzebub and Mephistopheles. This could perhaps show that he is beyond help as it is Lucifer who answers him now. Faustus is scared and threatened and this causes him to vow allegiance to Lucifer and the agreement with Mephistopheles once more. "Faustus vows never to look to heaven, Never to name god or to pray to him" etc. So within this one scene, we really see Faustus' ever changing allegiance and how spineless he really is. He is almost like a child, having mood swings which dictate his behaviour.

Finally towards the latter half of the scene, when Faustus has grovelled for forgiveness to Lucifer, he is presented with the seven deadly sins, each of which talks to him. However this appears to be a mere distraction, as when he sold his soul in Act 2 Scene 1. For example after each sin has finished introducing themselves and their characteristics, Faustus simply says "What art thou, the second" etc and just moves onto the next. So this seems a pointless exercise as Faustus' thirst for knowledge isn't being catered to, which surely would be more appropriate in order to really distract him. It is unclear, however whether Faustus is happy or angry throughout this parade. He says to Envy, "Away envious rascal!", which could be playful or serious. The nature of his reaction could be changed according to the production on stage, and therefore alter the mood of the scene. For example is Faustus reluctantly obeying Lucifer out of fear and does he really look down upon these creatures of hell? Or is he being playful with the sins as it were, and this would further show how he is so fickle in his beliefs? The comic feeling of this parade of sins could be to make light of the situation of to distract the audience and indeed Faustus himself, from the situation he has landed himself in. I personally believe Faustus is supposed to be being playful with the sins, and almost mocking them, e.g. "I'll see thee hanged." I think this is more appropriate as it emphasises the cowardly nature of his character and how he is one minute determined to repent to save his soul and the next he is none the wiser and declaring "O, might I see hell and return again, how happy were I then!". Marlowe may have been making another message about religion here, about how people's beliefs are so changeable according to the circumstance and what they stand to gain.

Cool, so in this scene Faustus is portrayed as completely fickle and pathetic really, and he is distracted easily by Lucifer, perhaps showing again that despite what he does it is hell who controls him now, even if he wants to repent he won't be able to as hell will stop him. I also think he is supposed to be reacting merrily to the seven deadly sins, as this would highlight his changeability even more, and I doubt he would be rude and aggressive to something Lucifer has sent, as he is all-powerful in terms of what happens to Faustus.

Fertig. 

Comedy In Faustus

In our last English lesson we looked at Act 1 Scene 4 of Dr Faustus. This scene is a comic scene slap-bang in the middle of the rather more serious business of Faustus selling his soul to the devil Mephistopheles. We looked at what we ourselves defined as comedy and then read the scene. In the scene, which comes directly after Faustus has first met Mephistopheles, the character Wagner is trying to convince a new character called Robin, who is a clown, to commit to his service. So the situation between Wagner and Robin is similar with that of Faustus gaining Mephistopheles' service in return for giving his soul to him. However this scene is supposed to be funny, indeed the fact that straight away Robin is called a clown shows the audience that he is meant to be seen as comical. The two have a bit of a comical debate which includes many a play on words and to be honest my sides were splitting by the end of it. OK sarcasm is sweet. =P

Anyway so we tried to think of ideas as to why this scene has been included where it has, or at all. As I have mentioned it takes place between two very serious scenes which are crucial to the play, and it doesn't fit in. Faustus has just met Mephistopheles when this scene takes place and in the scene that succeeds it he actually  confirms the deal to sell his soul to the devil.
One reason why this scene could be here is simply to relieve tension in the audience, although I believe this to be a relatively weak interpretation. However when talking about comedy we said it can often relieve tension and make us feel relaxed, so Marlowe could have put this scene in to make the audience re-engage with the performance after a scene that would have created tension over it's controversial religious context.
However I think a stronger interpretation of this scene is that it is supposed to act as a parallel to the situation Faustus is in, and therefore help to almost mock Faustus. For example, the clown Robin, a comical and seemingly uneducated character makes the sensible decision to refuse Wagner's offer and not commit to being his servant. This sets the way for a comparison with Faustus as in the next scene he makes his fateful decision. So by presenting Robin in this way Marlowe makes Faustus out to be even more of a fool, as despite all his arrogance and intelligence he isn't as sensible as a mere clown who is of no where near the same academic standing that Faustus is.

So yeah there's just a few thoughts about Act 1 Scene 4, I can't go into too much detail about why the scene is there because to be honest I'm not sure. For example the strongest I could think of was to expose how a clown is seemingly more sensible than Faustus, however this doesn't really fit with the points I thought Marlowe was trying to get across in previous scenes. Though I suppose he could be showing a different side and exploiting how those who are academic are listened to straight away when in reality they sometimes lack common sense. This could relate to how the common people of the time would accept everything the clergy etc told them as they were considered intellectuals.

Eh Up, Isn't There Only Meant To Be One Devil??

It was rumoured that during some performances of Dr Faustus in the late 16th Century, an extra devil was seen on stage alongside Mephistopheles (the character). Members of the audience claimed they saw this extra devil, which caused panic and fear in both actors and audiences. The play became infamous for this, and according to so-called legend the 'extra devil' was seen on several occasions. Many people even thought the play was cursed or evil. Although the extra devil rumours frightened many, it was good for Marlowe as it increased the play's popularity in that more people went to see it, despite their religious fears at the time.

Passion Plays

Passion plays have their origin in the Easter story and are dramatic presentations depicting the so-called passion of Jesus. So they show the trial, suffering and death of Jesus. Cheery ey? Passion plays are a traditional part of Lent in some Christian denominations, particularly Catholicism. 

They have been taking place since the 13th Century, and reached the height of their popularity in the 15th Century, when they were also performed in public squares with up to 200 actors from different social classes. They became increasingly more secular however, and started to add a lot more humour alongside the serious thought. By the16th Century due to circumstances at the time such as the Reformation which banned such dramatic representations of Christ, the plays were abolished. The plays were revived in the 19th         century and are now performed all over the world.

Symbolism On Stage

In our last lesson we looked at how the staging of a play can change the meaning of what's taking place on stage, and in this post I'm just going to outline some examples relating to Doctor Faustus and explain how I would stage a part of the play.

So, where characters are placed, what they're wearing, and any props they may be holding can symbolise something about their character to the audience or capture the audience's imagination. For example, in plays when a new character comes on stage it often says enter "above". This could be literal obviously, such as they are entering onto a balcony etc. However it could also show the high status of a character or their importance in the scene. In the same way, if there is some sort of platform on stage, this could mean that those who enter "above" are supposed to be separate/different from the others on stage. So they could be the spirit of a character for example, who is looking back at events and is invisible to the others. Like in Billy Elliot when his mother's character is often at the back of the stage watching him etc.
Secondly costumes can show status and wealth, and would, at the time in which Doctor Faustus was first performed, have been donated by aristocrats. Props on the other hand can perhaps most usefully show the audience what is happening in the story, for example if a character is holding a dagger then it's evident to the audience that the situation in dangerous or that violence has taken place. The example we thought of in class was if a character has a bloody tissue, as it sets the audience's imagination running, which means the actors don't have to spell what has happened out to the audience, as they are free to interpret the staging etc as they wish.

All of this would have been particularly crucial to a performance at the time of Marlowe as the stages were often bare, meaning the audience would take a lot from how the characters on stage were dressed and positioned. For example in class we looked at some more of Act 1.1 in which the good and bad angel appear and talk to Faustus. We were then asked to do a drawing of how we would stage this scene and why. I said that I would have the two angels on raised platforms either side of the stage, and I personally think that Faustus can neither see nor hear them. For example after they have spoken to him to try and convince him as to what he should do next, he appears to completely ignore them. So I would have it as if the angels are looking back at what has happened to Faustus and advising him, although they know his fate. Sort of like in a Christmas Carol with the ghost of Christmas past etc.

Anyhoo, that's me done. Roll on Friday's lesson.

What Does The Audience Think Now?

This audience seem slightly two-faced if you ask me, but this is arguably down to the way Marlowe chooses to present Faustus to them.

I recently blogged on the what the audience was, in my opinion, supposed to think of Faustus after the chorus' introduction of him. I said they are supposed to reserve their judgement of Faustus as the chorus say "to patient judgements we appeal our plaud". They are, however inevitably weary of Faustus' character, due to the nature of his crime and the highly religious context in which the play is set. However Marlowe aims to counter this by suggesting it wasn't entirely Faustus' fault that he did what he did. From the chorus they also see that Faustus is an intelligent man. So the audience are supposed to think Faustus did terribly wrong, but that the crimes he committed were not necessarily his fault so therefore they should reserve their judgement.

Last lesson we went through the first part of act 1 and re-assessed what the audience's opinion might be now. In this section of act 1 Faustus is alone on stage, in his study contemplating which subject he should study next. One thing which I think doesn't change is that the audience still view Faustus as a very intelligent man, for example his first line is "settle thy studies Faustus". This illustrates his intelligence as he is having to debate what to study, suggesting he has the brains to study anything and everything. The fact that he refers to himself in the third person could also show he has a rational mind, as he is trying to reach a reasoned judgement without becoming emotionally involved. However through this I think the audience may also be feeling that Faustus is arrogant and has an air of self-importance about him. He is nevertheless an intelligent and well-educated character as he reads and understands Latin for example, and in this sense I think act 1's introduction of Faustus follows on from the chorus' introduction of him.
This is, however the only point on which the audience's opinion isn't likely to have changed. I personally think they will now find it near impossible to reserve judgement and feel sympathy for Faustus, as he appears arrogant, selfish, power-hungry and blasphemous.

For example, Faustus rejects four highly esteemed subjects of study, claiming he is better than them and that he has already "attained the end" of them. He first rejects philosophy, saying "a greater subject fitteth Faustus' wit". Then he turns to medicine and rejects it as he feels he has already saved people's lives and that he is highly respected anyway, "Are not thy bills hung up as monuments?". The first thing he mentions about medicine is the opportunity to "Heap up gold and be eternized for some wondrous cure", this shows aspects of Faustus' ambition. He wants to be eternally remembered, thus showing his selfish attitude towards these many professions. He only wishes to study something that will bring him prestige, so in this case he would only be interested in finding a cure to a disease, not to save people, but so that he would be remembered forever. He then moves on to law, which he dismisses as "paltry legacies" and which he believes is "too servile and illiberal" for him. The audience see Faustus' attraction to freedom as selfish as he only wishes his studies to benefit himself and not others. Finally Faustus causes the audience's estimations of his character to really fall by dismissing the study of divinity. He seems to have a narrow understanding of religion, especially for a man who has supposedly "profited in divinity" and the audience may pick up on this and feel sorry for Faustus. However I think a stronger argument would be that the audience resent Faustus more still as he is dismisses everything which an average person of the time is likely to have held dear. Faustus states that you cannot escape sin and therefore death either way by studying divinity and so he cries "Divinity adieu!".

The audience find it particularly hard to sympathise with Faustus due to his blatant misunderstanding of their concept of religion and his blasphemous ambitions. For one he seems to laugh at religion, reading a quote aloud and laughing, "Ha!" which the audience would no-doubt find offensive. However it is in Faustus' ambition that the audience see his blasphemous tendencies and wishes to become apparently on par with god. He says "Yet thou art Faustus, and a man" and talks of his wish to have the power to raise people from the dead or give them eternal life. He therefore appears to want to be more than a man and have powers only god has, that is to grant life to others. Faustus sees limits even in the highest achievements of men, stating that although emperors and kings are "obeyed in their several provinces" even they cannot "raise the wind or rend the clouds".
When Faustus has rejected all the other professions including divinity, he adds injury to insult by picking up a book of magic and stating "necromantic books are heavenly" and that this is what he "most desires". It is the unknown nature of magic which Faustus is drawn to, but this doesn't gain the audience's approval as they think this "devilish" subject should remain unknown as it challenges god. Indeed Faustus wants to be like god, saying he desires "omnipotence" and to control " All things that move between the quiet poles", basically he wants to be all powerful and control the world, which wouldn't help the audience in reserving their judgment as they see this as possibly the most serious sin. Faustus then ends with "try thy brains to become a deity", he wants to become a god. So the audience cannot feel sympathy for Faustus due to his blatant blasphemy, selfishness and power obsession. Plus it seems unlikely, as the chorus warned, that the "heavens conspired his overthrow" as so far we have the impression that he is very arrogant and the type of person who would readily make deals with the devil anyway.

In a way, I think that although the chorus encourages the audience to sympathise with the character of Faustus, they are set up to do the opposite. For example by warning them that they should reserve their judgement, Marlowe prepares the audience to judge him arguably more harshly as they are looking for reasons why they shouldn't reserve their judgement, and act 1 provides them with many. I would argue that in doing this, Marlowe knew that the audience would never really empathise with Faustus and that he was aiming to make a point. For example the audience's opinion is so heavily influenced by their religious beliefs, that they cannot help but judge Faustus negatively, and Marlowe could be playing on this to show his dilemma. He can never create a respected and reasonable character that challenges religion, so therefore he adheres to the stereotype to illustrate the influence that religion has in society.

So, there we have it. I think the audience is now supposed to/does see Faustus' character as arrogant, self important, selfish, power obsessed and most importantly blasphemous. Their judgement is no longer being reserved, nor do they entertain the idea that the heavens, aka god, had a part to play in his downfall.

Cool. Elvis has left the building.

Why Was There Tension Between Catholics And Protestants In Elizabethan England?

Religions? Fighting with each other?! Utterly shocking, This is unheard of.

Basically, Elizabeth was Protestant and religion was very influential. The main tension between Catholics and Protestants had started with the Henrican Reformation and over the conflicting beliefs of the two groups. For example, Protestants reject the Pope, reject the Church and priests to act as a medium between people and god and say that salvation can only come from a close personal relationship with god through reading the Bible etc. Catholics ain't a fan of this, they love the Pope and a wee bit of salvation through confessions etc.

What Is The Audience Supposed To Think Of Faustus?

We started to answer this question in class, after reading the prologue of Doctor Faustus, in which the chorus provide us with the basis of the play and therefore our first impressions of Faustus' character.

So what is the audience supposed to think?

I think the audience is supposed to reserve their judgement of Faustus and to perhaps empathise with him. For example the audience are told by the chorus, "to patient judgements we appeal our plaud", so the audience are told to be open-minded and that if they wait to judge Faustus it will perhaps be beneficial to them. This is all despite the fact that they are told Faustus engaged in "Devilish exercise" and sells his soul to the devil. The audience are helped by Marlowe to appreciate Faustus more as the chorus takes them through his upbringing. "Now is he born...In Germany" etc. The use of the present tense "Now" draws the audience in and gives them a shared experience or even bond with Faustus, which I think is supposed to create sympathy and help them reserve judgement on his "Devilish" deeds. 

The reason the audience needs persuading to be more open-minded in their judgement of Faustus is because they are told what he did, which was to sell his soul to the devil, which at the time was arguably the worst mortal sin that could possibly be committed. On top of this the audience are told he conversed with the dead, "cursed necromancy" and that nothing was as "sweet as magic is to him", which were controversial interests to say the least for an audience in the Sixteenth Century. So he excelled in "heavenly matters of Theology" yet he committed this sinful deed and interfered with magic. Yet Marlowe seems to suggest through the nature of the chorus' introduction, that Faustus deserves their patience. 

Furthermore, Marlowe suggests that what happens to Faustus was not necessarily his fault. He talks of how the "heavens conspired his overthrow", this is again a strange moral view to adopt, to suggest that the heavens, i.e god was the reason for his downfall. Considering Marlowe's own atheistic tendencies, one could infer that he was making a statement here about free will and perhaps even criticising religion. He does this subtly enough, however so as to still to appeal to the audience, as outright criticism of the Church at the time was unthinkable heresy. 

So the audience are supposed to sympathise with Faustus and take into consideration the limited control he may of had in what he did. Also the audience are not told what actually happens to Faustus in the end, thus removing the inevitability of his downfall and perhaps leaving them time and scope to reserve their judgement, For if they were told that Faustus is dragged into hell, they would immediately judge him as an evil sinner who was punished for what he did, but leaving it open, "Faustus' fortunes, good or bad" means they are unsure what to think. For example if it turns out that Faustus is forgiven by god for what he did, then the audience's opinion would mirror this.

In addition, the audience are supposed to think that Faustus is a very intelligent man, but that this may have been a contributing factor in his "overthrow". For example we are told he was "graced with doctor's name", showing him to be of great intelligence and to have earned a higher status for himself. However he was "swoll'n with cunning of a self-conceit", his intelligence may have gone to his head and he seems to have become proud, a typical trait of a gothic protagonist. 

Fertig.

Frankenstein (Blog 3)

FINAL ENGLISH BLOG OF THE SUMMER.

Check me out, only two weeks in, yeah boiiiii!!

Anyways I have finished Frankenstein all in one day! My my I am sad. Oh well. I really enjoyed it actually, like I mentioned before I like to have extra detail and the text obviously provided that as I had only ever seen film adaptations before. I liked the part where Frankenstein came to Britain with Henry and the monster kills him in Ireland. (where the reception is very unwelcoming =P). I didn't even realise that Henry was one of the victims of the Monster. I also liked the narrative frame of the sailor being told this story by Frankenstein. It's almost like 'Rime of the Ancient Mariner', but without the whole being crap part =D. And with a monster.

So overall I enjoyed Frankenstein because it's retro but easy to read and is all together a good story. Except for the whole 'I'm your cousin/sister/lover thing'. Not a fan of that. Frankenstein is just a classic Gothic story and I think it's definitely the text which I can see stand-out elements of the Gothic in, compared to Faustus and the Bloody Chamber.
All in all Frankenstein is most enjoyable, Bloody Chamber the most interesting and outright weird and finally Faustus is the most.....ok. =D

Over and out.

Frankenstein (Blog 2)

Helloo again. So this text is 191 pages long and I have just finished reading page 103ish. I am enjoying the story so far and was surprised at how little the monster's creation is emphasised in comparison to all the film adaptations. For example in the films you see the monster a lot, but in the novel it's slightly different. I also thought Frankenstein's brother William was killed a lot sooner than I expected, but I think I preferred it as it re-introduced the monster into Frankenstein's life in a really scary and tense way.

At the moment the narrative has changed hands into the Monster and he is telling the tale of his life since Frankenstein abandoned him and he ran away. I am enjoying this extra detail about what the monster has been doing and the story of the family he is living near and observing. For example I was never aware of the story of the man Felix and his Turkish bride before, and so am enjoying this extra dimension to the story.

Not much to say really as I am not going to recount the story in this blog as that would just be pointless. Basically I think I'm almost at the bit where the monster is going to ask Frankenstein to create him a female companion.

Cool. Onward with the Frankenstein.

Frankenstein (Blog 1)

Helloooo.
So I have just finished reading the very beginning of Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein'. I obviously know the story well and we recently watched the film adaptation with Helena Bonham Carter and good old Kenneth Brannagh. By the way, did you see Kenneth at the Olympic opening ceremony? He was brilliantly dramatic as always!!

Anyway so for this text I kind of know what to expect in terms of the story line. I have got up to page 18 which is sort of the introduction to the story. A sailor writes letters home to his sister in which he tells her of his travels and how they found this European fellow floating in the ice near their boat. They nurse him back to health and the sailor becomes friends with him. The sailor then writes to his sister about how this strange man has a story he wants to tell him, and the sailor then relays it to his sister via letter. So this first section sets the  narrative frame for Frankenstein (who I have deduced is the European dude =P) to tell his story. Indeed the text then says 'Chapter I' and the story begins in first person with Frankenstein as the narrator.
I am looking forward to reading this book as I do like the story and it's pretty easy to understand all the way through. I also enjoy extra detail that obviously cannot be included in a film version. So the real message here is always read the book! ----and I am obviously really talking about the Harry Potter books =D.

Auf Wiedersehen!

Doctor Faustus (Blog 4)

Right so I have just finished reading the B-Text version of Faustus, which is pretty much the same just with added scenes and dialogue and a few slight changes which don't impact on the main plot at all.
I said in my previous blog that I might make a "cheeky comparison" between the two texts but I can't think of anything of real merit to compare so that's not going to happen. =D

To my great surprise I actually preferred this version, despite it's longer length, as I felt I understood what was going on more. This may have been due to the extra scenes providing more information, or I may have just been paying more attention this time! I particularly benefited from the extra scene with the Pope and the Emperor as I feel in sort of understand what they're doing there now.  =P. I also realised there were notes in the back of the book, which correspond to certain lines etc. Although they weren't of great help, they were useful when facing "Bloody Shakespeare" type language barriers! =D Hahaaa.

So yeah that's Faustus.

Doctor Faustus (Blog 3)

I have finished reading the Text-A play of Doctor Faustus! I don't really get everything that happened but in the end I did find the language easier to understand than "bloody Shakespeare" as I so-named him in my first blog on this play. Also I liked the length of it! Can easily be read in one sitting, an hour and a half or something.

Faustus visits the H.R.E in act four, who has heard of Faustus' powers and wants to make Alexander the Great appear before him in return for money I think, or a "bounteous reward". Faustus tricks some Horse-courser to buy this horse from him but it turns out it wasn't really a horse at all, just a bottle of hay transformed into a horse. Confusing yet again. Then some Duke and Duchess want some grapes so Faustus gets Mephistopheles to go and get some from like India or somewhere, then Faustus wants to see Helen of Greece brought back and so Mephistopheles does this and Faustus kisses her. Completely confused.

Finally Faustus gets cold feet yet again and goes to his three scholar friends and admits what he did. He has given his soul to the Devil and now it's time for him to be taken to hell. So in the end Faustus can't repent as it's too late, so Mephistopheles, Lucifer and other Devils drag him to hell. Joyful.

So yeah that's it. Overall I didn't dislike it and it wasn't that hard to read. I obviously got the main idea of what was going on but may have missed some rather crucial points in some of the longer paragraphs of dialogue which were harder to understand. 

As far as morals of the story are concerned it seems to me to be a play all about morality itself and what is right and wrong. Also how the Human Race is accountable for it's actions and has to pay the price. In this play it's done through this idea of religious morality and denying you creator just for your own greed and knowledge. So obviously it relates to the Gothic here with the idea of corruption of religion. It also has similarities with Frankenstein (which we're also studying) as the protagonist is going against God due to their greed for knowledge and power. However what Faustus does is arguably worse as he actually goes to the other side and makes deals with the Devil, whereas Frankenstein is only guilty of playing God, not outright going against him. 

Anyhoo I will read the B-Text as well, which I gather is pretty much the same, just with added material and a few changes. It is also, sadly, longer in length. =). I won't write three blogs on that as well, maybe just one to sum up what's different and what I thought about it, maybe a cheeky little comparison as well. =D

Doctor Faustus (Blog 2)

Ok so I just finished reading act 3. Meaning I am just over half way through Faustus Text-A.
In act two scene one, Faustus officially signs his soul away to the Devil in return for the knowledge and service of Mephistopheles. Faustus seems to be very indecisive and guilt-ridden about his choice however, and later on seems to wish to repent. However he is easily swayed when the evil 'angel' mentions wealth and wider knowledge of magic etc. So he seems a very greedy man, and this greed overpowers his judgement and guilt. Lucifer then appears and for some reason presents Faustus with the seven deadly sins in a kind of spirit form. This seems to reassure Faustus and he pledges his allegiance once more to Lucifer. Then in act three, Faustus and Mephistopheles visit the Pope in Rome and sneak into his chamber while he is eating his meal. Faustus asks to become invisible so Mephistopheles gives him a cloak (Hazzy P reference) and they taunt the Pope and his friars. For example Faustus "snatches" the Pope's plate and then hits the Pope! They then both beat the friars and throw fireworks at them on their way out! Random or what!? I don't really get how someone who seems so guilt-ridden about his decision to follow the Devil is backtracking one minute and then smacking the Pope the next =P. 
The final scene in act three is with Robin (the clown) and his sort of accomplice called Rafe. It appears that the have stolen one of Faustus' magic books he himself had acquired from Lucifer and they are teasing the Vintner (which I think is a wine merchant)over one of his goblets, which I assume they have stolen from him. They then use the spell to summon Mephistopheles, perhaps not thinking it will actually work. However Mephistopheles then turns up, coming to them all the way from Constantinople and he is not a happy bunny. He turns Robin into an ape and Rafe into a dog for their "presumption". Strange. 


I have started to get into this more now though! Although it seems very bizarre to me! I'm sure I will understand it better when we study it at school. After all, it is the summer holidays! 

Doctor Faustus (Blog 1)

Helloooo. So I started reading Doctor Faustus this morning and was genuinely happy to discover that the book which I have contains Doctor Faustus "and other plays". Yusssss. Less reading to do then!
So I've just finished reading act one and am already confused. The language is just so SO waffly and reminiscent of bloody Shakespeare, who is not my favourite guy in the whole world. But oh well.

So far Faustus seems to have decided that he's going to follow magic and dismiss religion, even though some angel appeared and tried to get him to repent etc. He then meets his two accomplices if you like, who help teach him magic. I think. =P.
Then this devil appears to him, who has a very long and funky name, Mephistopheles. What a guy. Faustus asks him to be his servant and he says he'll have to check with good old Lucifer first.
Then there's a random scene I really don't understand where Wagner (Faustus' mate) and this clown called Robin are talking and Wagner is trying to give Robin money to work for him. Confused. Two devils, a man and women then quickly appear and disappear which seems to scare the clown into agreeing to serve Wagner. "I'll serve him, that's flat."

Also there are two texts of Faustus in this book and I don't understand which one we are studying or if we are doing both. Anyhoo I have read act one of Dr Faustus A-text.
Onward with the reading! Only 4 more acts/33 pages to go!!

The Bloody Chamber (Blog 3)

Ok so I didn't make it three blogs in a day yesterday. Sad times. I had finished the book but frankly couldn't be bothered! I seem to have so much to do all of a sudden, reading, homework and the bloody personal statement. Anyhoo now onto The Bloody Chamber.

I will go through each short story in the last half of the book and briefly say what I thought.

Puss in boots; This is by far my favourite story in the collection. I just thought it was so funny! It is about a cat (the puss in boots) and his part in helping his master be with his love. Carter has written it from the cat's perspective, so he is our narrator and I just thought it was brilliantly crude and blunt when it came to the very comical sex scenes (major contrast with the darker feel of the Bloody Chamber for example).


The Erl-King; This is a strange one. The characters seemed a lot less apparent and detailed than in previous stories. For example I just felt we weren't really introduced to a main character on such a level as in other stories like the puss in Puss in Boots. The story follows a girl who falls in love with this creepy man in the forest who has loads of birds in cages which he has collected to sing with him. However it turns out these birds are women and they aren't singing they're weeping. I'm sure this relates to some form of feminism, but I'm not sure at the moment. Perhaps Marxist feminism as it's like the man owns these women and he keeps wanting to collect more and trap them, so he's showing greed and it impacts badly on women whilst the men get the benefits. Perhaps.

The Snow Child; All I have to say is that I blinked and missed it, so I re-read it and then wished I had missed it. EW!

The Lady of The House of Love; This is about a female vampire who lures travelers to her lair and then eats them. However then this particular guy comes along and she falls in love with him and can't go through with her plans to eat him. He then cares for her overnight and sucks the blood out of a wound she has or something. She then becomes human and then dies. I quite liked this story but I'm not sure as to which forms of feminism it would fit if any, as the man is the savior. However perhaps it could show that women cannot change the patriarchal nature of society all by themselves as the men can only truly change of their own accord. For example all the men the vampire eats only accept to enter her bedchamber because she is very beautiful and they want to sleep with her. So they only really see her as an object. Whereas this one man stands out from the norm. But then again in doing so he kills her and makes her weak. Confused.
Maybe it is supposed to symbolise how it is against nature for men to treat women with respect like the man in the story does, as the story arguably doesn't have a happy ending.

The Werewolf; This is, like The Snow Child a rather short short story =). It, like the two that succeed it, is a form of the fairy tale Red Riding Hood. A young girl goes to visit her grandmother through the dark woods in which wolves live. She takes a knife just in case, she is attacked by a wolf and manages to cut one of it's paws off. She then wraps it up and puts it in her basket (as you do). She then arrives at her grandmothers and finds her very ill, she then sees she has a hand missing, and she unwraps the werewolf's paw and it turns out to be her grandmothers frail little hand. Her grandmother was the werewolf. She calls for help and the neighbors beat the grandmother to death. Cheery. No idea really how this relates to feminism. Perhaps it could be linked loosely to Anarchic feminism as they have to take justice into their own hands and take control, even though the 'bad guy' so to speak, is a woman. Hmm. These stories aren't simple.

The Company of Wolves; Weird one this. Red Riding Hood again and this girl on her way to grandma's meets a man and says she'll race him to there or something. He turns out to be a werewolf and kills her grandmother. He then traps the girl and says he's going to eat her, however she isn't at all scared of him and she even laughs at him, "The girl burst out laughing; she knew she was nobody's meat". She then strips him and sleeps in the bed with him (as you do), the now "tender" wolf. This could perhaps have elements of liberal feminism as it emphasises the importance of the actions and bravery of women in gaining equality or respect. For example the man wolf is easily turned "tender" once the woman has asserted her authority over him. This could also support the feminism that wants a total flip round of current society in which women are at the top. For example men will be seen as "tender" (a normally female trait) and women will be the leaders.

Wolf-Alice; This is about this feral human girl who was raised by wolves and therefore initially thinks and acts like one. She is then, however taken away from her pack and put in this big house. There's something about this Duke character who I think she saves but I don't really get it to be honest. I will have to read it again, it wasn't all that clear in my opinion. But then I probably skipped a crucial explanation section by accident. Oh and the C-bomb is also dropped most skillfully in this story. I really dislike that word. There are so many better ones of the same caliber.
On that lovely note, I have finished The Bloody Chamber blogs. I did enjoy this book as for one I didn't really know what to expect and at least it was interesting and cleverly done. I know my slight analysis is rather poor but I'm not great at analysing first time round. Anyhoo, can't wait to read Dr Faustus. NOT!

The Bloody Chamber (Blog 2)

I'm Back! Two blogs in the same day. How thrilling. =D.

I have just read two more short stories that succeed 'The Bloody Chamber' in the copy I have. They are 'The Courtship of Mr Lyon' and 'The Tiger's Bride'. This leads me to page 75 in a 150 page book so I am slap-bang in the middle, so to blog at any other time would be insane.

Both of these two stories are based on the story of Beauty and the Beast but with a bit more of a sexual presence, haha. I personally think these two are more sad and you feel sorry for the Beast in both, as apposed to the whole men are bad, women good approach of feminism. So of all the ones we studied in class, I'm not sure which would apply here. Maybe Marxist feminism for The Tiger's Bride as the father bets his daughter in a card game as if she is an object or possession to be traded. In The Courtship of Mr Lyon the woman isn't actually what I would call the heroine or good character as she seems to become vain etc and ignore the promise she made to visit the Beast again.
I'm getting quite into these stories now and might even make it three blogs in one day if I finish soon! =D

The Bloody Chamber (Blog 1)

I have been told I have to blog about each of the three texts we are studying next year at beginning, middle and end. So this is my impressions on the beginning of 'The Bloody Chamber' by Angela Carter. When I say beginning I mean the whole of the first short story which is included in the book, which is the title story, 'The Bloody Chamber'.

I was really interested to start reading this book after we looked at the different kinds of feminism in class, and so am on the look on throughout my reading! =D So anyway I read the bloody chamber and I found it really interesting yet also very very strange. I'm confused as to when these stories are supposed to be set as they would appear to be set in like the 18th century onward, but I then cars etc are mentioned. Who knows.
But I did like the story in which a young innocent girl marries this older man who has had three previous wives. He gives her a key to his secret room but tells her not to go in it whilst he's away on business. So naturally she goes in and discovers his previous three wives dead in what is basically a torture chamber, for example one is still bleeding in the iron maiden. Lovely. He then comes back and he notices blood on the key and so knows she disobeyed him. So he goes ape and says he's going to chop her head off with some form of long sword (as you do). However then the girl's mum comes in and shoots this weirdo in the head. Woo. Happy times, women prevail =D.
I enjoyed the story (especially the short length of 40ish pages) and as expected was shocked by the totally random and detailed description midway through when the girl discovers her new husband's graphic pornography  and as Holly would say the 'C-bomb' is dropped. Hahaaa.However as we discussed in lesson this is done on purpose to shock you and show the characters shock as well at finding such things and being thrown into this suddenly very adult world.  There is a very Gothic feel throughout and the sensuality in the first story was painted as almost painful and very unpleasant. I am confused as to why this girl married this man whom she appears to be repulsed by when they are intimate, yet the story has feminist undertones. Food for thought. Overall I think I am going to really enjoy analysing these stories further and looking into deeper meanings which I will almost certainly of missed first time round!!

Cool, so I will read until exactly half way through and then blog again.

Christopher Marlowe

I have been told to keep this short and snappy, so I will.

Marlowe born 1564 and died 1593. Sad times.
He was a dramatist and poet and influenced Shakespeare, who was born in the same year. One of his most successful plays was Doctor Faustus--which we will be studying next year. It's about a doctor who sells his soul to the devil.

Maybe he was an atheist. Maybe not.
Maybe he was gay. Maybe not.
Maybe he was a government spy. Maybe not.
Maybe he was killed in connection to his arrest 10 days previously. Maybe he died in a drunken bar brawl. Maybe not.
He was stabbed to death by some bloke named Ingram Frizer. Sad times indeed.

The end.

1931 Frankenstein Film

Long time no blog. How exciting.

We've just started looking at the gothic as part of our A2 course, and we started to watch the 1931 film version of Frankenstein, which is one of the texts we are studying.

Cast
 Henry Frankenstein played by Colin Clive
His assistant Fritz played by Dwight Frye
Elizabeth Lavenza (his fiancée) played by Mae Clarke
Victor Moritz played by John Boles
Dr Waldman played by Edward Van Sloan
The Monster played by Boris Karloff

It was directed by James Whale.

The film begins with a 'friendly warning' in which the actor who plays Dr Waldman (Frankenstein's old professor) breaks the fourth wall and directly addresses the audience. This helps to build the audiences suspense, along with the actor who plays the monster being labelled as '?' at the start of the film.

The iconic and quickly identifiable image of the monster came from the way in which it is depicted in this film. Boris Karloff played the monster and had a square head with bolts through it.

The film was one of the most successful of the year and was followed by many sequels such as 'The Bride of Frankenstein' in 1935. However on it's release it was heavily censored across the US. For example the line that follows "It's alive!" was dubbed out by a large crack of thunder as it was thought blasphemous. It was "Now I know what it feels like to be God!". I don't understand this, as one of the films key themes is the battle between religion and science almost. And science seems to appear unadvisable, so it's not as of the film is promoting blasphemy.
Also in Kansas it was required that 32 scenes from the film would be censored, which would have left the film at half its original length! Oh Americans.

The film was made and released in the same year as 'Dracula', and both were produced for Universal Pictures. The success of both helped to save the studio from closure.

The 1931 version of the film is arguably the most famous and critically acclaimed. For example it is still frequently rated as an all time classic and a must-see.

Little fact to end; The costume Karloff had to wear as the Monster weighed 40 pounds!!! That's almost 3 stone!!!

Does Linda Achieve A New Sense Of Self?

In our last lesson we were looking at the end of Death of a Salesman to try and answer the question "To what extent does the end of Death of a Salesman uphold traditions of dramatic tradegy?". In particular we looked into whether the characters have a sort of self realisation in which they gain a new sense of self which they didn't necessarily have before. I will look into the character of Linda and explore whether she achieves this new sense of self.

Does Linda Achieve A New Sense Of Self?
To a great extent I think that that the character of Linda does not achieve a new sense of self at all. She continues to behave towards Willy in the same way that she has throughout the play and she doesn't seem to having any form of realisation. Willy may be stuck in his fantasy of the past, but Linda is stuck in her fantasy of believing that the way she and Willy are living is practical.
For example there doesn't seem to be any change in Linda, as shown by the fact that she still only has eyes for Willy and his happiness, she even seems prepared to brush off her own son if it will calm Willy down. For example when Biff says "I'm going and I not writing anymore" Linda doesn't even look at him as she is following Willy into the kitchen. She then gives a heartless reply of "I think that's the best way dear. Cause there's no use dragging it out". This shows her unwavering devotion to Willy's needs is still strong, stronger than her devotion to her children. So this shows that Linda does not gain a new sense of self as she still stands by Willy no matter what, and only thinks of him and his happiness. This is similar to earlier in the play when she doesn't remove the piping that Willy may attempt suicide with souly because she does not want to damage his pride.
Linda also never realises that she is only serving to spur Willy's madness on. She always encourages him in his fantasies, right until the very end. For example when Willy comes in from "planting" outside in the middle of the night she says "Did you plant dear?"-so she isn't actually helping him, if anything she's making him worse and if she had realised what this did to Willy, she may have actually been able to help him. Linda also continues to hide the truth from Willy, for example when Biff pulls out the piping to try and address the situation Linda shouts "Biff!" and tries to pull the pipe away. So she helps Willy to not see the truth, as she has done consistently throughout the play. Whereas Biff, who I believe does experience a self-realisation, sees that this is not the right thing to do anymore and he accepts reality, "I'm just not smart enough". So Linda hides the truth from Willy and doesn't realise that her actions aren't helping. It's ironic as she seems to be more concerned with Willy being happy, rather than facing the truth and being distressed, when in reality his fantasy happiness leads to his death.

To a very small extent you could say that Linda doesn't experince a self realisation at the end of the play, but she already has done when she broke down to Happy and Biff about Willy attempting suicide. As she admits she can't cope etc. However this doesn't change her behaviour or attitude towards Willy in anyway as she doesn't see that he needs real help and that they can't go on living the way they are, with Linda desperately trying to keep Willy happy whilst he mistreats her.

How Does Linda's Lack Of A New Sense Of Self Add To The Tradegy Of The Play?
I think it adds to the tradegy and irony of the play greatly as all Linda ever did was look after Willy, despite the fact that he didn't return these feelings all the time. So it's tragic that Linda didn't ever realise that her approach wasn't helping Willy and that she should have stood up for herself and taken some control in the family rather than letting Willy and his illness rule her life.
So Linda's lack of self realisation adds to the tradegy of the play as she is so devoted to her husband but, despite her best efforts, she was never able to save him as she was more concerned with his happiness rather than the negative effects this was having on everyone around him, including himself and her. Willy's imagined happiness is also what ultimately leads to his commiting suicide as he is forced to come crashing back to reality by Biff, and his fragile mind just can't handle it. So Linda should have addressed the problem earlier and not let Willy become totally engrossed in his fantasy, to the point where reality becomes too much for him. It is also tragic that Linda sacrifices her own happiness and even her relationships with her children in order to cater to Willy's needs. Therfore it is the tragic irony of Linda's intentions and the outcome these lead to (which could have changed had she also faced reality) that adds to the tradegy of the play.

Death of a Salesmen-P83 thoughts

There are many interesting aspects that drew my attention in the pages running up to page 83. These include:

• We learn from Bernard that on returning from Boston Biff burnt his University of Virginia trainers. This stood out to me as I think it illustrates just how affected Biff is by something that took place in his past as for him to burn those trainers was, I think, representative of him throwing any dream, hope or ambition he had. We debated in previous lessons whether Biff has the characteristics of Aristotle's tragic hero, and we couldn't think of a Hamartia or downfall for Biff. I think that his burning of his trainers could be his Hamartia to some extent, as even though Biff hadn't really achieved anything at this point, he had goals and aspirations, which seem to then disappear with the burning of his trainers. For example Biff doesn't really know what he wants from life so he has never been able to go out and get it, especially as whenever he feels pressure he seems to run away, for instance when he steals the fountain pen from Bill Oliver, whereas he used to have some drive spurring him on.  It is also obvious that something happened between Biff and Willy in Boston as when Bernard enquires about it Willy says angrily "Nothing. What do you mean, 'What happened?' What's that got to do with anything!"-however this still is a stange reaction from Biff, to metaphorically burn all your own hopes and ambitions just to distance yourself from your father seems odd. However perhaps Biff feels that his dreams and Willys dreams were, at that time, the same so to really show the relationship with Willy breaking down, he had no choice but to throw his dreams away.
• Another thing that struck me as interesting up to page 83 was the way Willy asks Bernard for advice about Biff. He initially still boasts untruthfully about how Biff is wanted by Bill Oliver "very badly" to work with him. But then when Bernard swiftly changes the subject to Willys job, he cracks up and talks about Biffs lack of success. I also think Willys lack of knowledge about business oncemore shines through when he asks Bernard "What's the secret?"-Bernard replies with "What secret?" and goes on to say that Biff's problem is that "he never trained himself for nothing". Willy thinks there is a sure fire way to be successful in business, such as being liked, or knowing the right people etc. Whereas Bernard understands that you have to train youself at business and work hard. 
• The final think that I found interesting was the way Happy acts with the woman, Miss Forsythe, who enters the bar. His bahaviour is reminiscent of Willy in that he thinks the only way to ever gain respect or get what he wants is to decieve and put on a front to people. He is very confident in his ability with women, perhaps compensating for his lack of business ability. For example he lies to the woman, telling her he's a rich champagne salesman and that Biff is "one of the best football players in the country". Like his father he exaggerates to make himself feel better. Happy also doesn't treat the woman with any respect and seems to take advantage of her, saying she's "on call", he then gets angry with Biff when he doesn't seem interested. Happy uses seducing women as a way to feel like he has accomplished, and is good at, something. 

Death of a Salesman-End of Act 1

In the sequence leading up to the end of act 1, quite a lot happens. First Linda breaks down to Biff and Happy, and informs them that Willy has been attempting to kill himself through car crashes and a small length of rubber pipe attached to the heater. This is evidently shocking for the audience as so far in the play, the problems haven't really risen to the surface, whereas now the characters are openly discussing them. For example this also tells us a lot about Willy, as initially you would think he was so wrapped up in his own imagination that he's happy, however he obviously does achknowledge his failures as he is attempting suicide (although he's even been failing at this!).

There are then more hints about what has happened between Biff and Willy, for example Biff says "I know he's a fake and he don't like anybody around who knows!".Willy then re-enters and Biff fights with him again over him being too harsh on Linda. Biff and Happy talk enthusiastically about starting a sporting business, and Biff is planning on going to see Bill Oliver (a previous employer) to try and get some money together. Willy then joins them and seems alive at the thought of his sons doing well in business, he describes their idea as "Million dollar".  Linda however has her doubts, saying "I'm just wondering  if Oliver will remember him". Linda also then asks Willy why him and Biff don't see eye to eye and he just ignores her, so this is another hint that something big and secretive went on in the past as both Biff and Willy don't seem to want to be the one to say anything, and they certainly haven't adressed the problem to each other so far. So as we are left with this, the audience's suspense builds and it sets them up for act 2 in which we find out why Biff and Willy had such a big falling out. Linda also asks Willy if he will go and talk to Howard in the morning to try and sort his work issues out.

The final thing the audience sees and hears in act 1 is Willy reminiscing of when Biff was a teenager, descibing him as "Like a young god. Hercules-something like that" . So again this keeps the audience's attention on the relationship between Biff and Willy as act 1 comes to an end. Willy then says "everything'll be alright" and as he says this, we see Biff come onto the stage and sneak the little piece of rubber piping from behind the heater upstairs. I think this is a good, strong visual ending to act 1, and I think the audience perhaps joins in with the false enthusiasm that the characters are adopting. For example, Biff has removed the pipe so Willy can't use it to kill himself, and both Biff and Willy seem determind in their own way to make things right. However Willy's comment of "Everything'll be alright" is too good to be true and I think the audience feels this. As usual Willy has got over excited about something and we wonder if he and all the other characters will come crashing back to reality in act 2.

The end of act 1 sets up the rest of the play nicely. Biff promises to stay and go and see Bill Oliver to ask for money to start a business with Happy and Willy talks of going to see Howard. I think the audience knows at this point that a lot depends on the outcome of these events, and this builds the anticipation nicely for act 2. The audience also hopes that they will find out what happened between Biff and Willy. The fact that the last thing they see is Biff taking away the piping builds the tension between Biff and Willy. I think it also highlights aspects of Biff's character, he is honest and more realistic than the rest if his family, for example as Biff is realistic he takes a sensible approach to the knowledge that his father is attempting suicide, he removes his means of doing so. Which I think is the realistic approach, rather than to worry about "insulting" Willy's pride like Linda does. This also potentially creates an opportunity for confrontation between Biff and Willy, in which Willy would have to confront his suicide attempts in front of his family and perhaps reveal the secret behind his ongoing feud with his son.

Hagel's Tragic Hero With Relation to Death of a Salesman

Are Willy's self-destructive actions caused by an attempt to act ethically?

Willy's self-destructive actions include;

• Cheating on Linda, as it makes him feel guilty and ruins his relationship with Biff.
• His envy of his brother Ben, as it just makes him feel bad about himself.
• Lying about how much money he makes, as he has to admit it anyway and it damages his self-esteem.
• Advising his children in the wrong direction, as it indirectly makes a failure of Biff, plus they both resent Willy for it.
• Ignoring his natural talents e.g. being good with his hands, as it narrows his horizons and he ends up pursuing the wrong lifestlye because of this (salesman).
• His pride, he is always beating away opportunities e.g. he denys Ben and Charley's job offers, this causes his self-destruction as he regrets it and sticks with his dead end job which highlights his weakness as a salesman.

I am going to look into Willy's self-destructive action of pushing his children in the wrong direction, in more detail. I think this action supports Hagel's idea that self-destructive actions are an attempt to act ethically, an attempt to be good. For example I'm pretty sure Willy doesn't intend for his boys to get as lost as they appear to be in the play. Both Biff and Happy seem totally unfulfilled and confused in life. Biff can't get what Willy considers a 'real job' ie a salesman, whereas Happy has everything he's ever wanted but is still really lonely and not sure if it is what he truly wants. However I think Willy was trying to act ethically by encouraging his sons to be salesmen. He has a warped perception of society and strongly believes that in order to be a success you have to follow the American Dream. So he was trying to make sure his sons had a good chance in life, and push them towards the lifestyle he saw as bringing fortune and happiness. Willy doesn't see that the career of selling isn't for everyone, he seems to assume he is the exception, and despite his own disatisfaction with sales, he still pushes his sons in that direction. So this then makes Biff and Happy very unhappy and to an extent I think they resent Willy for putting so much pressure on them to follow in his footsteps, for example both sons express wishes to work outdoors with "your shirt off", however Willy's rejection of being good with your hands as being a special skill has meant that Biff and Happy feel the same. So Willy's self-destructive action of denying his physical talents has indirectly led to this action. Willy then feels upset about how his sons have turned out, particuarly Biff as he appeared so promising in high school.  So this is a key example of Willy attempting to act ethically but it turning into a self-destructive action as he feels responsible for Biff's 'failure' in life in particular. However this example doesn't support the idea that Hagel put forward about the self-destructive action benefitting other characters.

Aristotle's Theory of Tradegy (the Plot)

Mimesis
According to Aristotle Mimesis is the "imitation of action" which is shown in the characters according to the "law of probability or necessity". This means that tradegy revovles around drama and dramatising what could or may happen according to probability etc, rather than what has happened. Aristotle pointed out that tradegy is more relatable as it deals with the universal (rather than history which deals with particulars) and therefore the audience feels tradegy is more relevant to them and their situation. Tradegy may happen at any time and in any place as Aristotle notes it is "fundamentally embedded in the universe". As a result tradegy makes people fearful, as they can see it happening to themselves.

The Incentive Movement
Aristotle insisted the plot of a tradegy much be "whole", with a beginning, middle and end. In modern terms the Incentive movement is the beginning of the plot, which starts of a cause-and-effect chain of events. The Incentive movement's effects are stressed as they are then the cause of the middle part of the plot. In the Incentive movement a problem is created which will usually be resolved in the resolution, or end, of the play.

The Dénouement
The dénouement is the what Aristotle described as "the rapid cause and effect chain" between the climax (middle) and the resolution (end) (the unravelling).

The Deus ex Machina
Aristotle describes the deus ex machina as outside intervention into the plot which then solves a problem in the play abruptly and quickly, therefore causing a surprising resolution to the plot.

The complexity of the plot
Aristotle said the plot may be either simple or complex, although complex is better. Simple plots have only a “change of fortune” (catastrophe). Complex plots have both “reversal of intention” (peripeteia) and “recognition” (anagnorisis) connected with the catastrophe.  Aristotle explains that a peripeteia occurs when a character produces an effect opposite to that which he intended to produce, while an anagnorisis “is a change from ignorance to knowledge, producing love or hate between the persons destined for good or bad fortune.” He argues that the best plots combine these two as part of their cause-and-effect chain (i.e., the peripeteia leads directly to the anagnorisis); this in turns creates the catastrophe, leading to the final “scene of suffering”.

First Impressions of Biff and Happy in Death of a Salesman...

Our first impression of Biff is that he seems to be a defeated character. We see this in the stage directions that introduce us to him, we are told that "in these days he bears a worn air and seems less self assured". So there is already a comparison between his former self, so this suggests that something has happened to Biff in order to make him have this "worn air". Plus through a comparasion to Happy, we see that Biff has accepted defeat whereas Happy hasn't. We are also told that Biff's "dreams are stronger and less acceptable than Happy's". So this suggests that Biff has different ideas of what the ideal lifestyle consists of. The fact that his dreams are "less acceptable" could insinuate that Willy has rejected Biff's hopes and dreams. We see that Biff may have some negative feeling towards Willy when Happy praises him and Biff merely replies, "I'm going to sleep". So he may be tired of his father's exaggerated success. We see that Willy's criticisms of Biff affect him when Happy says " What happened Biff? Where's the old humour, the old confidence?" and Biff just says "why does Dad mock me all the time?"-he is evidentily upset by it. We also see that Willy's downfall that seems to be taking place has links to Biff, when he is muttering to himself he is often addressing Biff, and Biff hints that he knows something when he says "Never mind. Just don't lay it all to me".

Biff seems to know what he actually wants, whereas not know what he's meant to want. He talks passionately about buying a ranch and contrasts this with the negative view he takes of the American dream, referring to "suffering" etc. Biff acknowledges that he feels lost and doesn't know what the future holds, for example he says "I'm mixed up very bad" and he says he feels "like a boy" because he's not married. He sees maturity as coming with being settled. He is not content with his life at all and is confused as to what he should do with himself.

The stage directions tell us that Happy "like his brother is lost, but in a different way". He has never accepted defeat, and this has consequentely made him more "confused...although seemingly more content" than Biff. Contrasts are made between the two brothers and these shape our first impressions of them.  Happy seems very uncertain about what he wants, he refers to his lifestyle saying it's "what I always wanted... And still goddammit, I'm lonely". This suggests he thinks the American dream is a lie. There are many contrasts between what Happy says he wants and how he feels when he has it. Another example of this is when he talks about wanting to "settle down" but then he says how he sleeps with married women, saying "I don't want the girl, and, still, I take it-and I love it!". He can't seem to decide what he wants. He seems to fall-back on his sexuality as a way of feeling fulfillment in his life. For example because he can't get ahead of other executives in the business world, he reverts to what he's good at to beat them, seducing women. He also has a confused outlook on his past for example he can't remember for definite who he lost his virginity to. Finally having said that he wants success, he concludes to Biff that the most important thing in life is to be "well-liked", suggesting that as long as you are respected and liked by others, you will get ahead in life. This seems contradictory as his constant womanizing isn't likely to make him be "well-liked".

Waybuloo loves Arthur Miller!

Hi-Hi!
Arthur Miller was playwrite! YAY! He lived long long way away from Nara, in magical land called America! Many cheebies live there! Yay we love cheebies! De Li, Nok Tok, Lau Lau and Yojojo would like it there, there we play peeka all day long! YAY! Cheebie Arthur liked to make up stories cheebies act out.
A long long time ago he had a big think-a-pow (yes even bigger than when Yojojo decided to hide the banana to stop himself eating it!) and made up 'Death of a Salesman', his biggest bestest play. YAY, well done cheebie Arthur! People know him for marrying Marilyn Monroe, YAY BULOOOOO! They loved each other like the piplings love their Narabugs. But Marilyn was sad, she had problems even Nok Tok couldn't fix, so she err...left Nara. But we still love cheebie Miller! YAY! Cheebie Miller was one of bestest playwrites in America! His plays are very sad though, too sad for piplings! (they'd ruin your buloo anyday!) Cheebie Arthur can't play peeka no more, he's err...left Nara too.
Oooohh, is that the magical chimes I hear? What's that Yojojo, it is? YAY YOGO TIME!
Buloo to all =D
(Extremely difficult to mix Waybuloo and Arthur Miller, they're hardly a match-made in heaven! So that's why there's very little actual info in here!)