This is a love song, and I believe that Alfred Prufrock was expressing what he whishes he could be for himself. These are all images of what he would like to see in his life. Prufrock has laid out his life, and “knows the evenings, mornings and afternoons”. All of them boring to him. So he writes a revision to such a plain life that he is leading. The poem resembles a dream. His fantasy of his life. This fantasy is really what he is in love with; the wanting to have another more exciting, attractive life.
This poem is in reaction I believe to the 1920’s woman’s rights movements. It talks about the ‘danger’ which was perceived in the movement, and warns against it; saying, “you know how dangerous gentlemen of threescore? May you know it yet ten more”. Which may be a looting to the dangers this unfamiliar ground. It speaks of a women sitting on a council and women who have perceived power. Where are the boundaries the poem seems to ask. Then a prayer, ‘may God send unto out virtuous lady her prince’, possibly in reference to women and their voting rights, and then the poem end, as I perceive it,’ chilled with fear and despair” because of the ‘new’ ideas and movements with in this time. This poem then speaks to allowing ‘Judith’ or any other American women to ‘hold their own in society, vote, and assert themselves into ‘male’ roles.
The title of the play definitely fits to the theme of the story. I felt like a machine myself as I was reading the play!
During the play, I couldn't connect with "YOUNG WOMEN" aka Helen. She didn't have any emotions at all! I guess that should have been expected, due to the fact that machines don't have emotions either. It wasn't until the last two pages of the play that there was any emotion from Helen. I felt more emotion reading, her becoming emotional thinking about her daughter, than I did the whole time reading the play. The play can be correlated with women’s roles in the mid 1900’s. There was very little variation in a women’s expected role. They obeyed their elders, got married, took care of her children, husband, and the house. The play tells of a women who followed such orders until it drove her to commit murder, so that she could be with another guy, which ended in her death. Again something which should have been expected due to the fact that over time, all machines will malfunction, or in Helen's case, self distruct.
So Daisy doesn't end up with Gatsby! Or should I state, that Gatsby doesn't end up with Daisy. (This revision due to the fact that the Novel really tells the story of Gatsby’s struggle to get Daisy back, and not so much on her part) This is so FRUSTRATING for me. I know that the novel wasn't exclusively a love story, however it defiantly had the elements in it, and was the part of the story which I was following most closely with.
In the first half of the book, I really couldn't relate to the Character Daisy, and to be honest had a hard time following the story. However the second part of the book really picked up for me. Daisy showed more emotion, or at times which were fit for her character, lack of emotion. Daisy really become a complex character for me. She was someone who I really looked closely at while reading.
What bothers me about Daisy in the second half of the book is that if. she is seemingly 'high school girlish'. She knows what she wants, and yet is afraid to admit it in fear that she will loose her 'safety net' which is Tom. She would rather play on both sides of the field; this way gaining doesn't require a sacrifice.
I believe that this point is exemplified in the whole scene where they head for town. To begin with, Daisy flirts with Gatsby openly. When Tom does inquire about the flirting, Daisy tries to interject as Gatsby tells Tom. Gatsby concludes that Daisy never really loved Tom, and that all their marriage Daisy has secretly loved Gatsby. This was a statement which caused Daisy anguish in confirming because it had potential to cause her loosing Tom.
Running along with the argument of Daisy getting her way in lou of sacrificing I want to add that… it's Daisy's idea to go into town, her idea to ride with Gatsby in the car, to and from town, and I believe her idea of driving the car, as well as not stopping to see what in fact happened to the victim. The icing on the cake of examples that Daisy is ‘self-centered’ is that ultimately was her decision, or lack of action which kills Gatsby. By not owning up to the fact that she was the one driving the car, as well as buckling to Tom and moving out of town with him; Daisy made half of the decision to harm Tom. The other half came from Tom who gave Wilson Gatsby’s name, and I believe address. However if pushed against the wall, I do believe that the final decision to kill Gastby was Wilson’s decision and action. However the decision was, on Tom’s part purposely and on Daisy’s part passively aided.
***I apologize for this note… however if you know me at all you wouldn’t have to read this, rather it would be implied. However I’ll share… What really upset me about the book was Daisy’s attitude and emotions toward her daughter. It seemed as though the Nanny was Pammy’s parent. I know that it was a ‘norm’ to have the nanny bring up a child, but it still got to me as I was reading the story. The lack of emotion which Daisy expressed really upset me. It made me believe even further her ‘childish’ ways. Especially, one time that we were introduced to her, it seemed as if Daisy was just showing her off to Gatsby. As if Daisy were saying, look what Tom got me, something that you never did. You are going to have to work really hard to get me away from the marriage. ***
Nick, the narrator of the story, has an interesting part in this story. He is the narrator of the story however, the story isn't about him in particular. Rather the story is about his friends, and the events which surround him. We see Nick socializing with Tom and Daisy Buchanan, and Miss. Baker. They all seem to have a close friendship with one another. The opening scene really brings my question to the surface. The four of them are having brunch together, and the phone rings. The readers are later told that it is Tom's mistress who is calling. Fitzgerald only allows a few words between Tom and Daisy about the phone call, and allows Nick to tell his readers who was on the phone. Then latter we are introduced to this mistress, on the train in New York.
I found it surprising that not only does Fitsgerald have Tom cheating on a main character, his wife Daisy; but to top it off, the lady which Tom 'has on the side' is also her self married.
The audience is taken to a scene of a party, at Tom's mistress’ (Myrtle’s) sister's apartment. At the party, Nick is seemingly nervous and uncomfortable.
My question is why Fitzgerald has this character, Nick, as the focus narrating the story? Also, where do Nick's loyalties lay? Nick is friends with Tom, as well as with Daisy. Would it be, for the time in the 1920's, incorrect to tell Daisy about Tom's affair? Or, does Nick’s loyalty belong to Tom, and therefore the affair according to Nick is warranted?
It would be my understanding that Nick, being the friend of both, would advise against the affair.
I look forward to reading the rest of the novel to see where the affair develops from here. Especially since Tom has shown some emotion involving Myrtle acknowledging Daisy in front of him.
Bernice Bobs Her Hair written by F. Scott Fitzgerald describes what a person will go through to impress others. It’s interesting reading this short story, and then relating it to the now –a- day taboo things that individuals do to their bodies, or outward appearances. Culture now accepts piercing, the new clothing trends, media, video and music aspects, can all be compared to bobbing ones hair in the 1920’s. Simply from the different reactions which each one receives.
Reading the short story, someone of today’s culture may think, What is all the fuss about? That really couldn’t be the worst that a person in high class society could do?
Thinking into the future I can’t help but wonder what later cultures may think of our new millennia culture. How far are we from Bernice Bobbing her hair to Paula piercing her tongue? Just that one example that I have given shows that culture is constantly fluctuating, for piercing are already becoming more and more socially accepted as a norm.
It’s interesting to look at the fact that we haven’t changed much. There will always be someone doing outrageous things for attention, and there will always be those people ‘pushing the envelope’, stopping just before it tears, or at times, actually tearing it. While looking at that perspective though, I think that it is necessary to question, and change, for how else would culture and humans advance in the various aspects that we have advanced in and are continually advancing and learning in?
We must thank the rebels for their creativity, and disregard for fitting in; or in Bernice’s situation for going to, at times, extreme measures to be heard and noticed. Thank you, to all the you Bernices for Bobbing your Hair!
The Adding Machine, written by Elmer Rice, speaks about life after death. I think that the author of the book was expressing a religious tradition’s explanation of life after death. A tradition from the Asia, Hinduism speaks about re-incarnation of the soul. An individual has a soul, which is on a cyclical path. The soul’s ultimate goal is to reach true knowledge of the Creator (The one), and achieve nirvana (being released from the cycle). Through the actions, and way of life, the human, and at times creatures go through various lives. Depending on their Karma (the idea that ones actions have consequences) when an individual dies, they can be re-incarnated, and it is where in the cycle they are that determines what they will return to earth as.
Zero the main character in the play, I believe went through this process. It is in scene seven which the idea of returning to earth is introduced. The play though does give subtle hints throughout the other scene suggesting that this religious tradition is being explored.
While I was reading, the way that Zero’s after life was discussed, I new that it didn’t resemble the traditional Christianity idea of a heaven and a hell, rather Zero was at a medium place, until Charlie, the last character that the audience meets explains to him the process which can’t be stopped, and that Zero is inevitably about to begin again.
A Jury of Her Peers was a story of Women sticking up for each other. Mr. Foster’s death led the local police to assume that Mrs. Foster committed murder, however with out the reason for committing the murder, there wasn’t much of a case against her that the local authorities could use.
The story tells of the police officer, sheriff, and a local neighbor looking for a motive Mrs. Foster may have had for the murder of her husband. It is the women while being ‘chuckled’ at by their husbands because they were originally questioning not the murder, but rather Mrs. Fosters quilting techniques; who ironically came across what seems to be the motive for Mrs. Foster’s actions against her husband.
The story ends with the three men still not being able to decipher a motive to the murder.
Although, I do believe that Mrs. Hale, and Mrs. Peters knew that Mrs. Foster was guilty of murder, their actions, or lack of speaking up 'saved' Mrs. Foster from facing a real jury who's decision it would be to say that Mrs. Foster was guilty or innocent. Therefore, the jury which Mrs. Foster was on trial with, were her two peers, Mrs. Hale, and Mrs. Peters.
I would say that Mrs. Hale, and Mrs. Peters didn’t purposely hide the evidence from their husbands, felt that they needed to stand up for Mrs. Foster after the loneliness that she seemingly suffered through her marriage. I would be willing to say that Mrs. Foster represents women as a whole, and that the author was trying to express our commitment to one another as women, and to use each other as strength, and support systems.
Don’t read too much into that though, I will put a disclaimer on my couple of paragraphs, and say that I don’t condone, or promote murder. Simply though, I am suggesting that the author uses a dramatic event to state a straightforward thought of a ‘sisterhood’ mentality.