We're All Mad Here...

          For the last blog of the school year I would like to continue a topic from my "Monsters and Ourselves" thesis paper. In this paper I compared and contrasted the obsessive nature found in Henry Jekyll from the novel, Jekyll and Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson, to the same nature of Clarice Starling from the film The Silence of the Lambs directed by Jonathan Demme. Alternately, for this blog entry I would like to discuss the natures of the villains/antagonists of these works: Edward Hyde and Buffalo Bill.
In Jekyll and Hyde, the character of Edward Hyde comes about through Jekyll's desire to create for himself two separate beings. What really interests me here is Hyde's mentality and understanding of his heinous crimes and actions (assaulting a young girl, killing Sir Danvers, etc.) And I believe that Hyde completely and utterly does not understand what he's doing or if he's mentally there at all. I mean he is described as primitive, ugly, and ape-like so basically he's a metaphorical animal. But if he is an animal, then who's going to take the blame for his actions because animals aren't rational, they just do what they need to do to survive. Jekyll straight up refuses and is all like "It wasn't me, it was Hyde." Yet Jekyll has been known to basically "clean/cover up" for Hyde's actions. Also, I found it kind of odd that Hyde just did these crimes without a motive. There's always motive. In the words of Elle Woods from Legally Blonde, "Happy people just don't kill their husbands. They just don't." In a sense, this is pretty accurate. You could think of every villain in the history of villainy, and they all have some type of motive. Something just has to snap in someone's brain for them to go as far as killing another being. And for Hyde, I just didn't see any motive, besides the fact that he is described as "pure evil." Although, Hyde's actions might have stemmed from Jekyll's suppressed history which isn't really stated in the book, and being the thorough readers that we are, we can't assume anything. So to me, it seemed like Hyde was just an outburst of Jekyll without any motive to go gallivanting around the city.

In The Silence of the Lambs, the serial killer, Buffalo Bill, is almost the complete opposite of Edward Hyde. He understands everything that he is doing (Note: he skins women in order to make a women's suit for himself. Really this movie is better than it sounds, it won Best Picture.) but I'm pretty sure that Buffalo Bill's mental state is not ok since he's, you know, a serial killer. Even when Clarice Starling is going over the case file, she describes him stating, "He's got real physical strength combined with an older man's self-control. He's cautious, precise. He's never impulsive. He'll never stop." And here's where I start comparing Buffalo Bill to Hyde because Hyde is almost exactly this. "He's got real physical strength," Yes because Hyde is very primitive and ape-like and would obviously be strong.  "He'll never stop." I completely agree and believe this true for Hyde. He already doesn't take responsibility of his actions nor does he understand them so why should he stop? I don't think he can stop. And if Jekyll kept going with the transformation, I'm pretty sure Hyde would take over and then all hell would break loose. Which is why somebody had to stop him. Luckily, that person was Jekyll who realized what he needed to do before it was too late. The same goes for Clarice with Buffalo Bill. She found him at home, alone, and she arrived at his home, alone. She already had him in her grasp and she knew that she had to kill him when given the opportunity. 

In conclusion, Edward Hyde from the novel, Jekyll and Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson, and Buffalo Bill from the film, The Silence of the Lambs directed by Jonathan Demme, strongly exhibit the same nature characteristics. They're both strong, and never ceasing. Unless someone is willing to stop them and put an end to this madness.  

A Society That's Something Next to Normal

          For this month's blog, I would like to expand upon the idea brought up in the Cult of Domesticity discussion. The idea was that what society thinks of women completely contradicts what the general populous of women are taught. Society glamorizes sex and beauty in women while we are taught to be modest intellectuals that can change the world. 

          And it's sad to think that our views on women have come so far and we've given so many freedoms to women yet society still chooses to objectify and degrade them. If you look at the works  The Awakening by Kate Chopin and The Yellow Wallpaper by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, both written at the end of the 19th century, you can see how the views of women have drastically changed since the societal opinions are reflected in the works of the time period.

          In The Awakening, Edna was expected to be subservient to her husband. When Mr. Pontellier believed that one of his children was ill while on vacation, he made Edna get up to check on the child.  When they went back to New Orleans, Edna was expected to stay in the house in case callers came to visit. And why did she continue to do these things? To conform to the societal role of women or be outcasted (or until she reached the breaking point and made her deadly decision.) In The Yellow Wallpaper, the narrator was kept in a room in her house because she was deemed "ill" by her husband. since he was a doctor, the narrator has simply become a lab-rat, an object for her husband where he can do anything to her as she is seen as "his property" during this time period. By keeping the narrator in the room, she is slowly losing her sanity because she is beginning to see creatures run around the grounds and becomes obsessed with the wallpaper. Soon the narrator reaches her breaking point and completely loses sanity as she has submerged herself in the removal of the yellow wallpaper. 

          There was a recent event that happened to me that contradicts everything I've known and have been taught about the value of women. I was working backstage during one of the school's play practices this year, trying to cut a material in half to be used for structural purposes. Except the way I was cutting it was not working correctly and I was getting frustrated and ready to give up. One of the male crew members said something to me (which I do not recall) and I replied with, "We can't do it, we're women." Now the teacher supervising this (who has known me for four years) quickly turns to me and said, "I can't believe you let yourself say that," because for those four long years this teacher has known me to be tough and willing to get my hands dirty as I am not the prissy type. I didn't have a reply for her that day, but upon contemplating the situation I found that I had blamed my own gender on my inabilities to cut things rather than my short-temperedness. Which, in all honesty, is the worst thing I can do because if other women begin doing this, that's just going to make it ok for men to do it and then society will be right back to where it was over a century ago. 

         With every leap ahead there will always be a few steps back. I'm glad that women have the freedoms that they have if only we could stray away from the objectification and contradiction that is always in pursuit. I already believe that women can do just as much as men and men can do just as much as women. maybe it'll just take another century before we're all on a level playing field. But then again to change society's value of women, we must first change ourselves. Do we, as individuals, conform to society's glamor or do we obey our own moral obligations and treat others as individuals regardless of gender? 

Awakenings and Asylums

          There was something I noticed in the works of literature that we read that was not discussed in class. I noticed that most of these female characters go mad, or experience a moment of madness in some way, before becoming an individual. Or perhaps they just seem mad to us because that's how we perceive them to be as they break away from their possessive husbands. The female protagonists in The Awakening, A Doll's House, and The Yellow Wallpaper all carry out actions that can be seen as "mad."
           In The Awakening by Kate Chopin, Edna's deranged moments occur right after she and Mr. Pontellier have dinner. He up and leaves, complaining that their dinner is scorched, and Edna is left to eat dinner alone. Afterwards, she goes to her room and "She carried in her hands a handkerchief, which she tore into ribbons, rolled into a ball, and flung from her." These actions only escalate as she "takes off her wedding ring, flung it upon the carpet. When she saw it lying there, she stamped her heel upon it, striving to crush it." Also, "In a sweeping passion she seized a glass vase from the table and flung it upon the tiles of the hearth. She wanted to destroy something. The crash and clatter were what she wanted to hear." I feel like this is what Edna needed to do to start breaking away. Her ring is probably her only attachment to Mr. Pontellier and by smashing it, she's showing that she doesn't need him. By smashing a vase, she can hear the crash and may feel more powerful knowing that she's broken something since she's never done something like that before.
            In A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen, Nora's act of madness does not take place until the very end which sparks her to leave the house. Torvald finds out that she took out a loan for their vacation years ago and has been trying to pay it back ever since. Torvald is outraged and calls her, "a hypocrite, a liar, worse than that, a criminal." He claims that, "Now you have ruined my entire happiness, jeopardized my whole future." The odd thing, at least to me, that is happening here is that Nora stays relatively calm. Her husband is freaking out and calling her harsh names and she just accepts it. She comes to the conclusion that both Torvald and her father have treated her just like a doll which is why she must leave. She explains to Torvald, "If I'm ever to reach any understanding of myself and the things around me, I must learn to stand alone. That's why I can't stay here with you any longer." Before leaving, she states that she doesn't want to see the children again, and that Torvald shouldn't write to her or try to help her as she doesn't want help from "strangers" as she slams the door upon exiting. Nora's slamming of the door punctuates her decision to leave and the beginning of a new life.
             In The Yellow Wallpaper by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, the narrator quickly becomes mad since she is kept in a room with little activity due to her depression. She becomes obsessed over the wallpaper in her room. The narrator believes she's seeing a woman behind the wallpaper as well as bars on her window. She stares at the wallpaper and believes it has a certain smell to it. She begins to take the paper off and when her husband walks in and sees what she is doing, she explains, "I've got out at last, in spite of you and Jane. And I've pulled off most of the paper, so you can't put me back!" Clearly to her husband, she is crazy. But in a sense, the narrator did become and individual and get out of her situation mentally, rather than physically.
             Since these female protagonists have gone mad, I can only see it fit to relate these texts to the popular show, American Horror Story: Asylum. This show takes place in the 60s in an asylum run by a Monsignor and nuns. Sister Jude, the head nun (played by Jessica Lange), dictates what happens to the patients should they need punishments. Except she slowly realizes that not everyone is what they seem. Sister Jude finds out that the Monsignor is allowing Dr. Arden, the only doctor in the ward, to experiment on patients, many of which suffer and turn into monsters. She's threatened to be stripped of her position which weighs heavily on her mind, plus her reoccurring past where she was involved in a hit and run and only later realizes that she never actually killed anyone. She tries to get Dr. Arden arrested for his actions but she fails as she slips into insanity. The Monsignor admits her to the asylum, hides her in the catacombs of the asylum, and fakes her death so that the public won't know what has become of her. Sadly, she sits in the asylum for at least 20 years rotting away in silence. Eventually Kit Walker, one of the sane patients that was wrongly admitted, gets her out and takes care of her. With the help of his children, they are able to bring her back to normal to the point where she can communicate and enjoy life. A few months pass and she knows she is going to die soon, and she dies content with life and content with who she ended up being. So just like Edna, Nora, and the narrator in The Yellow Wallpaper, Jude had ups and downs throughout her adult life but she was able to make everything ok in the end and was content with who she was and just like Edna, died peacefully.
             In conclusion, I don't blame any of these women for doing what they did. If I were put in any of their situations, I would probably go crazy too and look for some way out. But it's interesting to read literature like this because we can get a feel for what women in these time periods were going through and it's interesting to see that they would literally do anything to become and individual. Whether it meant giving up their marriage, their children, or their life, they were willing to do anything to finally become an individual.

It Is Time For Us All To Decide Who We Are

          In this month’s blog, I will be discussing an article called, The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. Now after completely reading this article I realized on thing. It was too long to tell me what I already knew, and that is what might be socially acceptable in one culture may not be acceptable in another. I wholeheartedly agree with this statement and this article. Obviously what works here may not work there. And in cultures or societies you can even look at it through households. What I can do in my house, I may not be able to do in my friend’s house. I think it’s just a matter of your own opinions and own moral standards. But I digress.

I actually wanted to expand on the topic lightly mentioned in the article, homosexuality, as it is (but doesn’t need to be) a controversial topic in our society. Many of the old folks around here believe that homosexuality is immoral and wrong, while the younger folks are totally fine with the idea and I think this fits with the lessons this Cultural Relativism theory has to teach. The author said, “The second lesson has to do with keeping an open mind.” You can also apply the “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks” saying to this situation. I fully agree with the author about keeping an open mind. No matter how hard you try, you can’t convince the old folks that homosexuality is ok and they should accept it. Hell, my grandmother doesn’t even like Elton John, and I’m not going to try to convince her otherwise. At the ripe old age of 92, I would probably lose in that argument.

Oh it’s hard to generalize now a days, but I would like to think that “most people” (or in my mind, the young adults) are more open minded and accepting of others that are different rather than the older, narrow-minded folks. But upon further thinking, usually we develop our moral standards in our households and are essentially “brain-washed”, in a way, by our parents into believing what they believe. But as we grow older and interact with other intelligent, rebellious teenagers, our ways of thinking may change. As a child homosexuality wasn’t on my list of things to care about. I blame the media and politicians for bringing it about. It probably wasn’t until high school that I started forming my opinion on it. Now if I really wanted to, I could make this an impossible decision and be an impossible human being. As a registered Republican, I should be against homosexuality and as a rebellious teenager, I’m not. I have a few gay friends so why should I think of them any different than me? They dress better than me on a daily basis so why should I make fun of them? I’m just trying to be a decent human being.

Adding to the Les Miserables fandom, and satisfying my obsession, I believe this theory can be applied to the musical. There are many actions carried out by the characters that are not moral to the beliefs of other characters. 1. The loaf of bread. My friend once summed Les Miz up as “people singing about stolen bread for 3 hours.” This is pretty much accurate. We quickly find out that the convict, Jean Valjean, stole a loaf of bread to feed his sister’s starving child. To Valjean, he was willing to do anything for his loved ones. Unfortunately the policeman, Javert, lives by the law, or as he has said “Honest work, just reward, that’s the way to please the Lord.” So Valjean finally gets out of jail, but breaks his parole and is still on the run. For the rest of his policing career, Javert vows to find Valjean. 2. The revolution. There’s a specific moment in the movie where Marius and Enjolras are out on a street corner rallying students and Marius’ father drives by saying that he is a disgrace to their family. To the Pontmercy family, they oppose the revolutionists. But Marius completely supports it. He acts poor, takes his place and fights with the other students at the barricades. He risks his life fighting for what he believe is right. In this case, Marius is open-minded to the idea of revolution and accepts it, while his family condemns it. 3. The “Dream Cast.” For those who don’t know everything about Les Miz, the “Dream Cast” is often referred to the 10^th Anniversary Cast. Most diehard Les Miz fans absolutely love this cast and are moderately tolerant of the other casts. (If you liked the 25^th Anniversary Cast, GET OUT. Everyone knows that that was terrible.) Now while Nick Jonas works in other musicals, he doesn’t work in Les Miz. Lea Salonga is excellent as Eponine, but should never be Fantine. So what I’m trying to say here is that the cultural relativism theory can be applied in a musical aspect. In the sense that where one actor is strong, they may not be strong elsewhere. Point and case: the 10^th Anniversary vs. the 25^th Anniversary. (Watch this if you don't agree with me, hopefully it'll change your mind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlOUqC1MtPM )

Honestly I could keep talking about Les Miserables forever. In conclusion, I agree with the article, The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, and believe that what is socially acceptable in one culture may not be acceptable in another. I also believe the lesson here is to learn to be more open-minded and accepting of others. After all, will you join in our crusade?

Anything Goes -- Now That Hamlet Has Gone Mad!

            For this month’s monthly blog, I’d like to discuss Socratic Seminar question #4 for Hamlet. This question asks, “Are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern true friends to Hamlet?” The answer to this question could go either way since everyone’s perception of a “true friend” is different. Ultimately it is up to the reader to make their own conclusion.

            Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are longtime friends of Hamlet’s and the king uses this to his advantage. At first, they are asked to visit Hamlet and figure out why he seems so depressed. But Hamlet senses something is up and knows that they were sent for. He soon confides in them that he will only pretend to be crazy. After Hamlet succeeds in his devious plan to get a reaction from the king, who is watching the play, Rosencrantz again asks Hamlet what is bothering him. Hamlet concludes that they are using him for the benefit of the king. Later on, the king declares Hamlet to be mad and sends him to England giving a letter to the King of England via Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, requesting Hamlet be put to death. Hamlet gets back to Denmark and tells Horatio that he switched the letters which now state that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern be put to death. Hamlet also says that he has no sympathy for them because they betrayed him and obeyed the king instead.

            Using the text only to answer this question, it would be a yes and no that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are true friends to Hamlet. They are true friends because they do seem somewhat sincere in wanting to know what is wrong with Hamlet. Rosencrantz asks Hamlet again what is wrong in Act 3, scene 2, line 365 as the first time was unsuccessful. They also do not directly tell the king that Hamlet is pretending to be crazy even though they know. However, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are not true friends because they are essentially spies for the king. They’re obeying his order to spy, then reporting back with their findings. Hamlet knows they are doing this and essentially can’t trust them anymore, which leads him to not express any sympathy toward their deaths.

            Personally, I do not think Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are true friends to Hamlet. True friends have your back all the time, you can tell them anything without being judged, and they will never give up on you. Based on my standards, they do not fit this description one bit. If Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were true friends, they would be involved in Hamlet’s plan. Hamlet would be able to fully trust them and tell them everything that was going through his mind and if Hamlet needed somebody to disappear, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern should have stepped up to the plate to help. Also throughout the text, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern only interacted with Hamlet when they need to. I thought they were friends! When you’re good friends with somebody you want to be around them all the time, whether they’re crazy or not. Here it seemed like they don’t care and are merely puppets to King Claudius’ plan.

            There is a song in a particular musical, Anything Goes, which describes friendship exactly as I think it should be. Ironically enough, the song is called, “Friendship.” The majority of the musical takes place on a ship and in the scene leading up to this song a nightclub singer, Reno Sweeney, and a gangster, Moonface Martin, sing about their flourishing, new found friendship. (Afterwards they plot how they are going to break up the engagement of a couple on the ship as Reno is falling in love with the man to be married.) Here is a link to the song if you so wish to listen to the lovely duet of Sutton Foster and Joel Grey: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9AU--uMcVU. Basically the underlying message is that friends are supposed to have your back and be there whenever you need them. And the sad thing is that Hamlet is going through this breaking point and NOBODY is there to support him. Everyone is against him and thus declare him mad.

I don’t blame Hamlet for going crazy. If I can home from college and my family had a situation like his, I would probably flip out too. But usually in my times of crazy, I have friends that can sympathize or calm me down. In Hamlet’s case he didn’t. Nobody calmed him down or gave him sympathy so the amount of crazy he exhibited just kept increasing until he started killing and freaking out over every little thing. Once again, if Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were true friends of Hamlet they should have let him vent, calmed him down, brought him back to reality, and returned him to society. See this is why everybody needs a friend. So that you have someone to balance out each other’s crazy fits with.

 

To possibly understand the title reference, watch this dance number from Anything Goes! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0eYWJZceK4

The Indestructable Mushu...Errr Beowulf.

            I would like to revisit Socratic Seminar Question 1, part E for Beowulf. The quote given from the poem is, “A warrior will sooner die than live a life of shame,” and the questions that follow are: What values are expressed? How do they exemplify the culture in which Beowulf lived? And do they reflect values that exist in our culture? 

            Let’s start with the first two questions since they go hand in hand. Many family related values are expressed through this quote. To boil it all down this quote is about honor, and bringing honor to yourself and your family. And with honor comes with making good decisions and bringing about a good aura to your family name for generations to come. Otherwise if you don’t bring a good name to your family you will look like a complete fool and will probably be dishonored by your kin. The same holds true in Beowulf’s culture. The pagan society was all about upholding the family name and living up to your family’s expectations. A direct instance in the poem where these values apply occurs from lines: 2435-2471. Here, Beowulf tells the tragic death of Herebeald. So it goes that Haethcyn accidentally shot his brother, Herebeald, with an arrow and killed him. Hrethel, their father, grieved continuously afterward and later disowned Haethcyn. Rather than live a life of shame, Hrethel who was, “Heartsore, wearied, he turned away from life’s joys, chose God’s light and departed.” In this case the warrior, Hrethel, would rather die than have the accidental killing of his son ruin his family name.

            Hearing this quote instantly reminded me of Mulan. At one point the lizard…I mean “dragon”…sent to rescue Mulan (who has joined the Chinese army to fight the Huns in her father’s place) exclaims to her “Dishonor! Dishonor on your whole family! Dishonor on you! Dishonor on your cow!” and Mulan wants to bring honor to her family since she has been previously shamed. She made a fool out of herself in front of the matchmaker who even says to Mulan, “You are a disgrace! You may look like a bride but you will never bring your family honor!” And Mulan speaks out of turn in front of imperial soldiers and her father basically tells her she is a dishonor right then and there. So how does this all relate back to the Beowulf quote? Well Mulan is risking her life to bring honor back to her family and ultimately to please her father. Once again characters like Mulan and Hrethel are in that mindset of placing their family’s name before their lives and are willing to do anything to sustain it.

            The final question that follows the quote is: Does this quote reflect values that exist in our culture today? I think, in an essence, yes. We as human beings strive to do well in our lives, try to live by an honorable lifestyle, and make good decisions for ourselves. I know that I wish to do well in my family and not degrade my family’s name by making horrible choices. But on the career path, my philosophy is not as strict as in Beowulf’s culture. Like I said earlier it was all about living and fulfilling your family’s expectations. Today, I’m not going to follow in my parent’s footsteps for a career and I’m going to do what makes me happy. I’m pretty sure that seeing me in a successful career will make my parents just as happy. On the flipside, there are people out there who have made poor decisions, have brought a wretched name to their family, and instead of living a life of shame these people fall into depression and may even do the unthinkable. Once again, this follows the quote exactly. These people would rather die than live a life of shame.

            Ok this is getting extremely depressing, and it’s Halloween, and I have digressed. So to quickly sum it all up so I can get on with scaring small children: I believe that the quote “A warrior will sooner die than live a life of shame” all comes down to honor and giving honor to your family. Especially in Beowulf’s culture because honor was a big value that the people followed and respected. Also in today’s society, I believe our culture still lives by this quote but only to some extent in that our lives are to please us rather than to please our family. Alas! I leave you with one final thought, “will you bring honor to us all?”

For the Invisible Man, this really is the Circle of Life.

            I’d like to bring up Socratic Seminar Question 46 for Invisible Man as it asks the question, “What else could I have done?” In reference to the text, the narrator states this in the Epilogue as if the audience might have an answer for him to become visible in society. We’ve seen the narrator go through ups and downs (mostly downs) as he tries to make his way in the world. Mr. Norton has long since forgotten about him, he was thrown out of college, fired from his job at Liberty Paints, and backstabbed by members of the Brotherhood. All while trying to do what he thought was right.

The way I see it, the narrator has two options. One, he could do something drastic and become a character like Ras the Exhorter who tried to wage a racial war within the city. Or two, do absolutely nothing and accept that he means nothing to society. If he’d gone with option one, he may have made a name for himself and become acceptable in society but he’d probably gain more enemies in the meantime. Although this route would require him to either have a peaceful or violent attitude toward society. And during this time in history peaceful protests were not common. By default he would have to do something violent, but I don’t think the narrator contains any violence in him as the only bad thing we’ve seen him do is help to burn down an apartment building towards the end of the book. Unfortunately, the narrator went with option two. Physically and figuratively crawled into a hole and withdrew from society. At least he did a bit of reflecting on his life, I’ll give him that since it’s better than doing nothing.

“What else could I have done?” This is an age old question that many people ask themselves at some point in their life. This question usually pops up after a relationship has crumbled or a friendship has parted ways. On a depressing note, some may ask this after a loved one’s death, wondering themselves if they could have prevented it or have done something different. In a popular Disney film, The Lion King, I realized that Simba and the narrator both have something in common; they don’t know who they are and are afraid to go back to society. Simba has been led to believe that he has caused his father’s dead, and the narrator has been led to believe that he can do no right in society because both have left society to shape the early part of their lives. For Simba, it was Scar who controlled it and for the narrator it was mostly Dr. Bledsoe and the Brotherhood. I feel like the narrator needs someone like Rafiki to knock some sense into him and give him a reason to return to society.

Without digressing too much, I’d like to bring up another quote in the Epilogue. The narrator says, “To lose your direction is to lose your face,” and I believe this also adds to the question of “What else could I have done?” Throughout the novel, to me it seemed like the narrator never had a sense of direction, or wanting to do what he wanted, he was always trying to please others. And I believe that if you get caught up in putting others before you that you lose a sense of who you are. That’s probably another option that the narrator could have done, live for himself. If he had a dream or pursued his speaking career he may have made a name for himself.

You know, I really was rooting for the narrator through most of the book. But like many other characters I gave up on him. Mainly because it seemed like he was not willing to make a change in his life and to change for the better. So it really is no surprise that he asked the rhetorical question of “What else could I have done?” Right now I’m asking myself the same question. What else could I have done? (Mainly to make this first blog post successfully come to an end without rambling.) So I’ll leave you, the reader, the same question. What else do you think the narrator in Invisible Man could have done?