Literature Analysis #4

Literature Analysis: Medea  by Euripides

1.

2. In Media the two main themes demonstrated include betrayal and revenge. Betrayal can easily be seen as a theme in the play due to where all the anger and despair that follows when Jason betrays his wife Medea causing her to act out which leads to the second theme of revenge. Her hatred fuels her to do inconceivable acts in the pursuit of revenge which forces her to use manipulation and this ties the two themes together since manipulation is just another form of betrayal.

3. The tone seemingly appears cynical most of the time with Medea constant plotting for her ex husbands suffering yet sometimes sympathetic which relies heavily on the chorus who expressed their sympathy for Medea fates and Jasons slain children in their words.   

4.  

• Symbolism - the murder of Medea’s own children symbolizes her wrath and past love with her husband.
• Symbolism - Deities like Apollo are an obvious symbolic element in Medea.
• Tone - Euripedes sets a bitter and dark overall tone as the murder of her children is a significant influence on the play
• Imagery - Imagery is heavily used throughout the play for Medea, as she is often described to be in a angry and raged state.
• Direct Characterization - The author frequently uses direct characterization for Medea to draw out her personality. It is effective because it clearly implies her rage and fluster through the direct characterization.

Characterization:

1.Direct Characterization:

• her heart passionately in love with Jason.
• Their fine love's grown sick, diseased, for Jason,

  Indirect Characterization:

• Don't fear me, Creon. It's not in me to commit crimes against the men in charge.
• I'm not that clever, but still you fear me.

2.The authors diction does change when Medea talks, the author shifts the diction to be more aggressive compared to the other neutral characters of the play. I feel the reason behind changing the diction is to make Medea stand out as a character who can no longer fit in her society due to efforts in seeking revenge. Although the author changes diction, he doesn’t change the syntax of the play at any point. So all in all, the syntax between Medea and other characters doesn’t cause an obvious difference.

3.Medea is dynamic because she is forced into a problematic situation where her husband leaves her to enhance his position which then make her drastically change into a vindictive character who would resort to killing her children to get revenge. Medea is a flat character because her goals never change and are never impeded on even when feeling sympathetic for the killing of her children which she does just for revenge.
4. After reading this play, I felt that I met a real character because the emotions and thoughts that Medea experiences are somewhat realistic. Although Medea is mostly violent, and she shed the blood of her two sons, the complex emotions that she undergoes is parallel and relatable to anyone. That being said, I would not want to actually meet Medea in real life.

poetry analysis- I felt a funeral in my brain by Emily Dickinson

1. Meaning- This individual has created a scenario in her brain where she’s falling into the abyss of insanity and can feel it devouring her through a well-crafted story in her subconscious.

2.  Antecedent Scenario- The speaker gives a clear picture of the scenario of a funeral and her mind in which I begins to have an ominous feeling.

3.  A Division into Structural Parts- Among the speakers thoughts she first hears the signs of insanity creeping over through the mourners, next to the weight of the led boots that cascade across the casket, she then hears the signs through the church bells and finally silence meaning the start of her descent as after this occurs the floor of her mind breaks.

4.  The Climax- The climax here is when the wooden floor of the speakers casket breaks after hearing silence and falls rapidly into the void of madness and then knows she has fallen into insanity

5.  The Other Parts- This Poem doesn’t exactly have any differing parts other than the speaker setting build up and then of course when the poem itself climaxes where the speak then knows she’s found insanity.

6.  Find the Skeleton- The tone itself stays descriptive with a sense mortal folly being imminent.

7.  Games the Poet Plays with the Content Genre- The mortal coil of reason poem.

8.  Tone- Once again I find the tone to be very descriptive with a sense of mortal folly being imminent.

9.  Agency- The agent would most likely be the speaker as she is the one who sets up the clear world in her mind through the course of the poem.

10.  Roads Not Taken- The poem itself could be blunter but I could not imagine it with a better premise because it would be less morbid if we knew what broke her mind and reason.

11.  Speech Act- "First, she criticized me”- She attacks you with the premise or the scenario.                                                                                                                      

 “Then she apologized”- Then apologizes through descriptions of what is happening among her mind.                                                                                                                                                       “Then she explained why she was upset”- She explains why she was upset through the casket floor breaking and hurtling her to horizons of insanity.                                                                                

  “finally she asked if we could still be friends."- She accepted the fact she knew she has lost all reason.  

Brave New World Essay

Among the passages of The Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, there is a trace of characters that live among a world where individuality is kept out of the highly collective society or at least an attempt at it is made. Through this intriguing society it’s precisely accurate that with the upbringing of conformity that individuality will find a way among humanity that resides within. Bernard Marx would be a prime example for most but he fits entirely too well in a society of conformity after gaining popularity, that is why the actual best characters for this would have to be Helmholtz Watson and John or should I say the “Savage”. This is quite possibly achieved through Helmholtz coveted thoughts as well as his conflicting life and Johns grizzly demise in which proves to be pervasive against the novel’s essence.

Helmholtz lived his life writing hypnopaedic phrases among the shackles of society, but had an unusual love of poetry that would outcast him from society if news were to become a public spectacle. The shackles placed on him by this all powerful state during his upbringing were thought to strike down individuality but as Aldous Huxley exhibits within him, individuality would find a way in any shape or form with his passion for poetry. This being said Individuality appears to be quite malleable to its environment, appearing unshakeable but what if you lost it, even for a mere moment?

John aka The “Savage” was on quite the opposite side of the spectrum of Helmholtz in that he had all the individuality he could require and in his final moments among the Denizens of the world state he joined there conformity or in other words part of the mob. John lost what individuality made him, well him, and from this committed suicide to retain what little individuality he could grasp onto. Even among the world states conformity hazed stupor of a society, individuality is treasured to the point of an extreme act of death to retain it. Huxley proves once again that individualism will outweigh conformity at all periods as long as humanity will linger.

This reasonably esteemed Aldous Huxley did something unheard of with this fictional society, in that he proved that Society sense of conformity will never consume all trace of individualism because it finds away in each new member of humanity. This was confirmed by his character Helmholtz who was in search to a haven for it and even with John the “Savage” who chose the ultimate fate to preserve it. During our lives we find it so easy to slip in to the constraints of conformity for our society but with the growing advancements among humanity do you think individuality will be devoured?

Literature Analysis 4

Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau

Collaboration: Hikaru Kasai, Bailey Reasner, Jared Dube, Marcel Dube.

TOPIC(S) and/or EVENT(S): (Jared)

1. The essay I read was Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau. The essay focuses on the peoples right to overthrow an unfair government.  Basically if an unjust law is passed you don’t have to follow this law if you believe it isn’t right. Thoreau for example believes that America is an unjust government at the time he wrote the essay due to slavery and wars. The best way to overthrow a government is to play no part in it since no one is obligated to participate the evils of an unjust government. All in all, he believes most governments are all bad and their only job should be to meet the wants and needs of the people.
2. I believe David Thoreau chose to write this essay on his dislike for governments after protesting the government by not paying taxes. Another reason could be that he wanted to spread his form of protest to the masses in order to incite a change in government.
3. The reason I decided to read this essay is because I really think Thoreau’s view on government is very interesting and gives a lot of insight from the past. I also picked his essay to read due to the rational thought process he uses to back up his ideals.
4. I found this book very realistic due to the way it brings in current events from the time period. When Thoreau mentions how the people should protest unjust laws it is similar to us today in that people dislike some aspects of our government but do nothing about it.

PEOPLE: (Hikaru)

1. Since this piece of literature is more of an essay, Thoreau does not present characters, but rather his entire essay is a deeper reflection of his thought. His thought process is extremely rational and mindful of history. The author is very questioning and reflective of himself.
2. Henry David Thoreau  strongly believes in individualism and questioning of the government (or self aware in general). He is very subjective and critical towards the American government, and also the American citizens.  He argues that citizens are not using intellect, and their voting in general reflects their own interests. His argument goes back to the core of the American people. Overall, Thoreau is more of a liberal thinker.
3. Thoreau is interesting to write about because his arguments and thoughts are very constructive and well thought out. Much of his explanation is clear and practical, but some of it can be seen as too radical or liberal. He is very self aware of his surroundings and very keen of outside influence.

STYLE: [Marcel ]

1. Thoreau did not use any notable literary techniques from fiction, he used a more journalistic style with a persuasive tone. Multiple time in his essay he would give his opinion on most things as well as supporting his opinion with references in history and quotes from which he strongly believed in. An example of this would be how he describes on how to counter an unfair law.
2. Thoreau uses mainly dialogue and action to to promotes his argument and uses example of people and history to strengthen its bonds, overall making the entire essay stronger to the reader giving out thoreau’s style of rebellion to the audience.
3. He uses examples of injustices acted out by the government ,society  and the use of his own personal opinion in order to create a mood of defiance and a tone of accumulating frustration.
4. Thoreau was annoyed by the government and went to reach out to the reader to take action against slavery and the escalating war between mexico and The United States of America.
5. Thoreau doesn't offer many outside sources but he does have a very appealing opinion and way of using it to its full effects. However there are a few quotes he used to get his point across .

ENDURING MEMORY: (Bailey)

In this novel the individual is the final judge of right and wrong. More than this, because only individuals act, only individuals can act unjustly. When the government knocks on the door, it is an individual in the form of a postman or tax collector whose hand hits the wood. Before Thoreau is imprisoned when a confused taxman had wondered aloud about how to handle his refusal to pay, Thoreau had advised, “Resign.” If a man chose to be an agent of injustice, then Thoreau insisted on confronting him with the fact that he was making a choice. As Thoreau explained,

"is, after all, with men and not with parchment that I quarrel."

Also,  the domestic consequences of the conflict were very disturbing. Taxes rose and the country assumed a military air. Thoreau was horrified to learn that some of his neighbors actively supported the war. He was perplexed by those who did not support the war but who financed it through the taxes they paid. After all, he considered the war to be

 “the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool.”

Without cooperation from the people, “a few individuals” would not succeed in wielding that tool.