We've just started digging into heroic mythical archetypes, so I'm not sure if there is a lot to post about it yet. Either way, I wanted to set up a place for our examples of mythical heroic archetypes that we see in the literature we read.
The first books that came to my mind, aside from Harry Potter, were a series by Tamora Pierce. She writes middle-school aged books about an ancient, magical kingdom with monsters, castles, knights... the whole shabang. In particular, I was thinking about the Protector of the Small series. In these books, Kel is the main charactor. She's girl trying to be a knight in an entirely male-dominated society. She's the first girl to openly try for knightship in over a thousand years. This makes her an outcase within her community. She also has a somewhat obsucre and mysterious past because she and her family recently moved from another country. Laz also made the point that the hero or heroine must be removed from the life they knew (the threshold guardian). In the first book, Kel is unsure whether or not she wants to try out for knighthood. Later on in the week, Kel is attacked by a bunch of deadly immortals while she is walking near her home. She is unable to defend herself for long, and her brother saves her. This attack sealed her decision to try for her knighthood and learn to defend herself and others. She no longer feels protected because she knows she can't defend herself. This is a break away from the life she knew. In terms of the second point Laz made (Hero not invincible, but not a fool), Kel's charactor applies as well. She's quick on her feet and has common sense, but she has physical limitations because she is a girl (less muscle power). She also has a severe fear of heights, which becomes a challenge she has to face towards the end of the series. All of the heroic archetype points fit into this novel, but I also think I picked an easy example. These books are openly about knights, shining armor, winning love, fighting dragons. An interesting example would be one which isn't so obvious.
Comments? Other examples?
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Cordelia
I really liked how Rachel brought up the fact that we hadn't really focused on Cordelia's character and her significance. Laz also gave us a totally different point of view on her character to balance out her 'Christ-like' image. At first, because of the lack of speech and activity on the part of Cordelia's character, I thought her to be a really static and boring character. However, after Laz gave us that varying view to keep in mind, I changed my mind. I'm really attracted to Cordelia's character now- in a new way. Was Shakespeare trying to make a statement by keeping Cordelia's character seemingly subtle? Personally, she now attracts me more than the other characters. Maybe because we've talked about the others already. I'm really interested in seeing what kind of other things we can come up with as a group. Any ideas?
Sunday, September 23, 2007
feminism
Alrighty then
Feminism
Wanna hear a joke?
Women's rights
hahahaha......
Anyway
The term "Feminism" is way too broad. There are many schools of thought within Feminist literary theory that have evolved throughout the years.
The first one, which I find most interesting is androgyny. This theory statest that creative minds are sexless and to consider it otherwise is sexist. http://www.victorianweb.org/gender/femtheory.html
Applying this to King Lear, that means that the qualities found usually associated with the males of the play (the manipulation of Edmund, the goody goodiness of Edgar, the eccentricities of Lear) can actually be found in the women of the play. This explains why Goneril and Regan break the norms of the social order in Elizabethan times by using deception and "ends justify the means" tactics to gain power. Normally, one would consider these traits as masculine.
Androgyny also explains the femininity of the males. Lear's show of emotion in Act I is a prime example of this. Men were expected to hide their emotions and act objectively to situations. Lear does the opposite in Act I.
Question: Does feminist literary theory rely a lot on the social norms etc during the time each piece is written? That seems to be the case because views of women change a lot during each time period in history.
http://www.kristisiegel.com/theory.htm
good site that provides a brief summary and additional scholarly sites for each school of literary criticism.
Feminism
Wanna hear a joke?
Women's rights
hahahaha......
Anyway
The term "Feminism" is way too broad. There are many schools of thought within Feminist literary theory that have evolved throughout the years.
The first one, which I find most interesting is androgyny. This theory statest that creative minds are sexless and to consider it otherwise is sexist. http://www.victorianweb.org/gender/femtheory.html
Applying this to King Lear, that means that the qualities found usually associated with the males of the play (the manipulation of Edmund, the goody goodiness of Edgar, the eccentricities of Lear) can actually be found in the women of the play. This explains why Goneril and Regan break the norms of the social order in Elizabethan times by using deception and "ends justify the means" tactics to gain power. Normally, one would consider these traits as masculine.
Androgyny also explains the femininity of the males. Lear's show of emotion in Act I is a prime example of this. Men were expected to hide their emotions and act objectively to situations. Lear does the opposite in Act I.
Question: Does feminist literary theory rely a lot on the social norms etc during the time each piece is written? That seems to be the case because views of women change a lot during each time period in history.
http://www.kristisiegel.com/theory.htm
good site that provides a brief summary and additional scholarly sites for each school of literary criticism.
Friday, September 21, 2007
King Lear Movie
Would anyone else be interested in taking Laz's suggestion to see the Akira Kurasawa version of King Lear? If a lot of people (relatively speaking) were interested, we could find a convinient date, maybe sometime next weekend? And because I enjoy eating, and I don't really know much else about Japanese culture, I would highly suggest we include sushi. :)
Anyone interested?
Anyone interested?
Thursday, September 20, 2007
crash course into marxism
http://www.assumption.edu/users/ady/HHGateway/Gateway/Marxistlitcrit.html
Provides a pretty good outline as to what marxism is all about in terms of literary theory/criticism.
The idea that I find most troubling is that Marxists try to see what is not there. I'm starting to understand what Laz was telling us in class though. If you try to look from the outside in, you'll just get confused. :P
Provides a pretty good outline as to what marxism is all about in terms of literary theory/criticism.
The idea that I find most troubling is that Marxists try to see what is not there. I'm starting to understand what Laz was telling us in class though. If you try to look from the outside in, you'll just get confused. :P
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Id vs. Ego
I didn't get a chance to bring this up in class today so I thought I would post on the blog now... Shakespeare seems to deal with the struggle between the Id and the Ego throughout this play.
Through psychoanalysis, Lear and Gloucester's insanity can be view as a battle of the Id and the Ego, with the Superego caught in between. Both men act rashly -- Lear quickly dismisses Cordelia and Kent without considering the ramifications his actions and Gloucester believes Edmund without listening to Edgar's side of the story. Their irrational behavior is a result of the Id overpowering the Superego to manifest itself. Because of this behavior, both men sink into insanity -- the Id has completely taken over which results in their primal behavior. However, the Ego is still there -- Lear and Gloucester both realize their faults and try to rise out of madness. By learning where they went wrong and trying to rectify their mistakes, Lear and Gloucester's sense of self returns. The Superego is then able take back control and sanity is restored.
Albany also struggles with his Id and Ego. During the first few scenes, Albany wavers over whether or not he should support Goneril, Regan, and Edmund. When in the presence of these characters, Albany is influenced to "lower his waterline," as Laz would say, and to allow his more barbaric feelings to manifest themselves. However, due to his Superego, Albany feels that he should suppress these feelings. Eventually, Albany realizes that the right thing for him to do is to support Lear and his Ego is triumphant.
Disagree? Agree? Anything else anyone wants to add?
Through psychoanalysis, Lear and Gloucester's insanity can be view as a battle of the Id and the Ego, with the Superego caught in between. Both men act rashly -- Lear quickly dismisses Cordelia and Kent without considering the ramifications his actions and Gloucester believes Edmund without listening to Edgar's side of the story. Their irrational behavior is a result of the Id overpowering the Superego to manifest itself. Because of this behavior, both men sink into insanity -- the Id has completely taken over which results in their primal behavior. However, the Ego is still there -- Lear and Gloucester both realize their faults and try to rise out of madness. By learning where they went wrong and trying to rectify their mistakes, Lear and Gloucester's sense of self returns. The Superego is then able take back control and sanity is restored.
Albany also struggles with his Id and Ego. During the first few scenes, Albany wavers over whether or not he should support Goneril, Regan, and Edmund. When in the presence of these characters, Albany is influenced to "lower his waterline," as Laz would say, and to allow his more barbaric feelings to manifest themselves. However, due to his Superego, Albany feels that he should suppress these feelings. Eventually, Albany realizes that the right thing for him to do is to support Lear and his Ego is triumphant.
Disagree? Agree? Anything else anyone wants to add?
Monday, September 17, 2007
Social order in King Lear
Social order seems to be the biggest theme present in King Lear. It is the one theme whereby most of the other major themes stem off of. The father-daughter relationship where the daughter's father is also her lord and king. The king-fool relationship that reverses any conventional preconceptions about a fool's role in a king's court. And there are probably a bunch others that I've forgotten. In any case, this social heirarchy is both critiqued (as Fatima proposed in class) and praised. Here's my take:
In the relationship between King Lear and his three daughters, he treats his daughters as if they were loyal servants, not his own flesh and blood. In the first scene, Goneril and Regan states their love (more like allegiance) for their father, not unlike when a knight pledges to protect his king. Cordelia, the seemingly only sane person in the whole play, states that her love only goes so far as it should from daughter to father. She criticized her sisters' confessions for professing more love to their father than to their respective husbands. This is where the critique of the social order comes in. King Lear confused the roles his daughters played in his court. Breaking up his kingdom and selling it to the highest "bidder" completely breaks down the familial relationships between the members of his family. Instead of unconditionally giving his daughters each a dowery, he makes it into a contest which breeds jealousy and unneeded competition. (but i'm no psychologist)
The praise comes when you see the good people step up. As Lazarow said in class, there's the hope in a monarchy whenever there's a change in power. Tyranny gives way to justice and a peaceful time can begin.
Agreements? Disagreements?
And can anyone give any primers on literary analysis?
In the relationship between King Lear and his three daughters, he treats his daughters as if they were loyal servants, not his own flesh and blood. In the first scene, Goneril and Regan states their love (more like allegiance) for their father, not unlike when a knight pledges to protect his king. Cordelia, the seemingly only sane person in the whole play, states that her love only goes so far as it should from daughter to father. She criticized her sisters' confessions for professing more love to their father than to their respective husbands. This is where the critique of the social order comes in. King Lear confused the roles his daughters played in his court. Breaking up his kingdom and selling it to the highest "bidder" completely breaks down the familial relationships between the members of his family. Instead of unconditionally giving his daughters each a dowery, he makes it into a contest which breeds jealousy and unneeded competition. (but i'm no psychologist)
The praise comes when you see the good people step up. As Lazarow said in class, there's the hope in a monarchy whenever there's a change in power. Tyranny gives way to justice and a peaceful time can begin.
Agreements? Disagreements?
And can anyone give any primers on literary analysis?
Monday, September 10, 2007
Welcome to the 2007 MHS AP English 4 Blog!
Welcome, AP English Literature scholars of MHS Class of '08! It's a great pleasure to welcome you to your home on the web--your class blogsite.
Ever since we first began using online bulletin boards as a way to converse about literature and writing (all the way back in the early '90's, and please don't feel the need to comment about how long ago that was, or how old you were then), it was always my intent to do the same in my classroom. Admittedly, it took a little longer than I thought, but here we are.
I have put this space together for the benefit of your academic pursuit--to expand your ability to converse about the texts we will be discussing. This space is essentially yours to post relevant--and presumably intelligent--comments and questions regarding our readings. At the moment, that would consist of Shakespeare's work King Lear, and the concepts we will soon discuss on the topic of critical literary theory. No doubt you have many questions to pose.
Please note the following rules:
1. ONLY students enrolled in MHS AP English IV may post comments here. This is not a discussion board intended for the world.
2. Anyone who posts must do so with their REAL first name. Any posts found to be made using names other than real (for example, posting using another student's name) will be dealt with according to school disciplinary policy.
3. All discussion will proceed in respectful, scholarly manner.
4. To ensure that #3 is obeyed, I will personally monitor all discussions on this blog. It's not that I don't trust teenagers to behave in responsible ways. . .oh, wait--yes, it is. I don't. Don't take it personally.
5. Do not expect me to comment on every posting, even if a question has been directly asked of me by one of you. I am much more interested to see whether your fellow scholars are capable of suggesting viable answers and explanations. I reserve the right to comment when and if I deem it necessary. Frequently, I will allow a discussion thread to continue unabated, in order to bring that thread into class for further investigation.
6. From time to time, if the mood strikes me, I may make a comment or pose a question, or refer you to some additional reading I've discovered. Just because I've done that does not make you obligated to respond. . .at least, not yet.
7. Just in case you haven't been told this yet--or you have, but forgot--please remember: this course is designed in every respect as the equivalent to the entry level course of the variety required of collegiate English majors. That's right--you're taking a college-level class, a year ahead of time. Reconcile yourself to the gravity of that reality right now, and be prepared to handle the work that will reasonably emerge for you this year. Conduct yourself with that level of academic responsibility in mind.
8. Oh--and, yes, the blog will be a required element of your grade each marking period, so make it a part of your daily online ritual. Check it frequently, and post or comment consistently. The concept of "participation" is now no longer restricted to the classroom walls!
That's all I can think of at the moment, but I also reserve the right to change/adjust/modify/ invent as we go along. Because I can, that's why.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts, and seeing you all in in class to continue these discussions face-to-face.
MR. LAZ
Ever since we first began using online bulletin boards as a way to converse about literature and writing (all the way back in the early '90's, and please don't feel the need to comment about how long ago that was, or how old you were then), it was always my intent to do the same in my classroom. Admittedly, it took a little longer than I thought, but here we are.
I have put this space together for the benefit of your academic pursuit--to expand your ability to converse about the texts we will be discussing. This space is essentially yours to post relevant--and presumably intelligent--comments and questions regarding our readings. At the moment, that would consist of Shakespeare's work King Lear, and the concepts we will soon discuss on the topic of critical literary theory. No doubt you have many questions to pose.
Please note the following rules:
1. ONLY students enrolled in MHS AP English IV may post comments here. This is not a discussion board intended for the world.
2. Anyone who posts must do so with their REAL first name. Any posts found to be made using names other than real (for example, posting using another student's name) will be dealt with according to school disciplinary policy.
3. All discussion will proceed in respectful, scholarly manner.
4. To ensure that #3 is obeyed, I will personally monitor all discussions on this blog. It's not that I don't trust teenagers to behave in responsible ways. . .oh, wait--yes, it is. I don't. Don't take it personally.
5. Do not expect me to comment on every posting, even if a question has been directly asked of me by one of you. I am much more interested to see whether your fellow scholars are capable of suggesting viable answers and explanations. I reserve the right to comment when and if I deem it necessary. Frequently, I will allow a discussion thread to continue unabated, in order to bring that thread into class for further investigation.
6. From time to time, if the mood strikes me, I may make a comment or pose a question, or refer you to some additional reading I've discovered. Just because I've done that does not make you obligated to respond. . .at least, not yet.
7. Just in case you haven't been told this yet--or you have, but forgot--please remember: this course is designed in every respect as the equivalent to the entry level course of the variety required of collegiate English majors. That's right--you're taking a college-level class, a year ahead of time. Reconcile yourself to the gravity of that reality right now, and be prepared to handle the work that will reasonably emerge for you this year. Conduct yourself with that level of academic responsibility in mind.
8. Oh--and, yes, the blog will be a required element of your grade each marking period, so make it a part of your daily online ritual. Check it frequently, and post or comment consistently. The concept of "participation" is now no longer restricted to the classroom walls!
That's all I can think of at the moment, but I also reserve the right to change/adjust/modify/ invent as we go along. Because I can, that's why.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts, and seeing you all in in class to continue these discussions face-to-face.
MR. LAZ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)