March 15, 2005


I think this was a fantastic play, i became so entangles in the story i almost forgot i was reading, i saw it more as i was watching a movie or a life situation enraveling before my eyes. I know it would had make a better play and it encaptures the audience, but i also think that its my personal opinion that the reason why i loved it was because it was kinda brutaly realistic.

It was sad and unfair to see Blanche taken away in the end because her sister could not believe that her husband raped her. I also saw unlike the other plays a more developed personality than in the other plays. As you go along reading you can tell that Blanche's character is very complex, because she has everybody fooled in the begining. You would never think of her as a person that was madly going through an emotional downspiral because of men and then finally fell into one in the end aas she tried despreatly to run away from the awful past that life handed to her.

When i finished this play i was mad at almost all men, because it was Standley fault that she got comited, Standley raped her, he was foul and evil and nasty...and he got away with it. He ruins her relationship between her and Mich, ruins probably her only chance on hapiness and a happy life and dosen't even flinch at his cold and unmeaninful decisions. But most importamntly he is a character that is disrespectful and mean to all women. he hits his own wife, throws his plates on the floor, talks down to Blanche and Stella and is blindly unawear or unitrested in their oppinions or even their feelings on certain situations.

Yet you also have to see it on the other scale, Blanche lied to everyone, not to cause anybody deliberate pain, but to avoid herself of unesesary perhaps judging and disaproval. And in the begining of the play i really didn't like Blanche because i though of her prissy and stuck up and the end of it, i began to feel sorry for her, because it wasn;t her fault that everything had to go deliberately wrong on her life again just for a few bad choices. Most people see her ways of thinking and acting as prissy illusions in which she drove herself to madness, i saw it as despreate attemps for a woman to escape a cruel and heartbreaking reality.

Posted by MisheilaPellot at 08:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 03, 2005


On the assingned reading:

A Good Man

Posted by MisheilaPellot at 09:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 01, 2005

The Balance of Symbolism

i think that it was intresting to see in the articles to entirely different approches to the same play. It brings the fact to mind that Shakespears plays could be interpreted in all kinds of ways, so much like somebody can spot the relationship between Caliban and Prospero as slave and Master, one can also see in it father and son. Just like they might interpret Caliban to a black man symbolizing the slave trde that was begining to be present in Shakespeare's time others can also see him as the personification of the human side of man.

Just like so many people saw Miranda's character as the weaker link that was manipulated and obedient to follow Prospero's wishes. Others can see a strong character that speaks her mind and even at a point in the play speaks against her father in order to save Ferdinands life. Honestly i think we will never know wether the meaning of the play was meant to express this or that view of a relationship or a meaning, i think deep down is just up to the reader to make his and her mind about a certain opinion.

One thing that i found intresting though about Leinninger's essay was the observation that if Miranda would had been a man instead of a woman the context of the play would had been very different. Mainly because Caliban would had never been punished with the accusation that he tried to "violate" prospero's daughters chasity and plus a son would not have to serve a father' wishes as ardorly as a daughter could.

I mean when you think about it, if Miranda would had been a son and her character would had still followed Prospero's wishes as they did on the play, how would it make that character seem? Week...frail? You would even think him even a weak link to Prospero an unable to be a king and inherrit the throne, for who wants a king that allows himself to be governed by other influences easily. Yet in a queen, obedience, dedication, and love for a father are concidered virtues, and i don't think its because of a anti feminist statement that Shakespeare wanted to portray it was just the a main fact that existed in the society that he lived in.

What do you all think?

Posted by MisheilaPellot at 02:13 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack