Elizabeth Bishop: The Significance of Art in “Poem”

Bishop starts off the poem explaining that it’s made up of very basic colors (steel grays and greens). She also states that the painting is very small and that it is of a place in Novia Scotia. I think the way she speaks about the painting in the beginning really makes what she is trying to say even more powerful. The simplicity of the painting shows that any piece of art, no matter how seemingly insignificant, can be a picture of something that would otherwise be lost.  

 

In the second stanza, Bishop says, “In the foreground a water meadow with some tiny cows, two brushstrokes each, but confidently cows”.  I think with this one line she’s reiterating that even the most effortless art pieces have some significance and some meaning. Even though they were just slight brushstrokes, Bishop says that they were “confidently cows”.

 

Secondly, in that same stanza, she talks about the church steeple saying, “Elm trees., low hills, a thin church steeple -that gray-blue wisp-or is it?”. I think here she means to show two things. On the surface, it seems that she can’t make out what the wisp is, but I think the deeper meaning of that line is that art is up for interpretation. That blue gray wisp could be a church steeple, but it could also be something else to someone else.

 

With all that set-up, she then begins to recognize the place, and she remembers it being passed down from her great Uncle George. This begins to explain the significance of art as a whole. It’s a window into a different time and place. She and her Uncle George lived years apart, but somehow their views are united through this tiny painting. It’s a window that doesn’t change, and without it she and her Uncle may not have been able to share this “look” together.

 

I think she titles the poem “Poem” because poetry is her form of art. She uses words, rather than paint to create her windows and views. That way it will be possible to share what she sees with someone else, even after she has passed. I think Bishop does this very well in all of her poems. She is a very descriptive poet, as we have talked about in class, and I think each of her works does an excellent job of allowing me to see into her world.

Glengarry Glenn Ross: Mamet’s Use of Profanity

I think that Mamet uses profanity in Glengarry Glenn Ross as way to reflect his characters in the dialogue. Profanity is harsh and brazen, and it mirrors the attitudes and reality of all the employees. The whole world that Mamet has set up is verytestosterone infused society. When you think about the language of the play it really showcases that dominant male culture. Mamet’s inside look at that life also really displays its faults in that all of its anger and hostility ultimately results in a downfall (Levene).

We also see that the characters seem to use profanity as a crutch as all the tension in making the sales builds. None of them use any intricate language and the dialogue is full of stammering, pauses, and curse words, which almost foreshadows the eventual whirlwind of upset at the end of the play.

The use of profanity goes a lot deeper than just words on the page. It serves as a looking glass to see inside the crumbling male workplace. It really sets the mood for the story and isn’t at all unwarranted. It may be found to be too much or too severe, but I think that’s why it’s there. All of Mamet’s characters are rough and tough, so it’s an extra boost to their personalities and lifestyles. Without it I’m not sure the play would have the same effect as it does with it. So in my opinion, Mamet made a good move by incorporating it into his writing.

King Lear: Feminine Transformation

I think that Kahn makes an interesting point. I didn’t look at Lear that way before, but now that it has been brought to my attention, it does make sense. My only argument against it (if it’s even considered against it) is that it isn’t the only transformation that Lear undergoes, and I don’t think it’s one that Lear would admit to going through.

I do see from the beginning of the book Lear’s “masculinity” getting in the way. He doesn’t want to let go of his kingdom, he doesn’t cry, and when the only daughter that truly loves him walks out, he does not show a single sign of sadness or guilt. I debate whether it’s purely masculinity though. It could be that it’s a combination of Lear’s stubborn personality and masculinity. As the play continues, is it that Lear is loosening his manly shackles and adopting a new feminine outlook, or is it that he has simply seen the error of his arrogance and decided to change his actions for the better?

I feel like the answer to that question could be a mixed response. I am sure that asking Lear himself would result in the latter, but Lear could be unknowingly letting the women inside come out. That is the best idea I can come up with having read the excerpts and the play.  I think that Lear, while growing as a person, has somehow managed to accept a feminine side. I think it might even come with letting go of his past ways. As Lear gets rid of his haughtiness, he opens up, and that makes him have more feeling and emotion than he ever had before. By the end of the play he finally feels the pain of his daughters dismissal. He’s in an entirely different place than he was in Scene 1.

Kahn has surfaced the idea, but I think with any growth in maturity, male or female, you have to be willing to understand and more or less feel. If you don’t then you will always be living like a child. Children don’t yet understand or have a heavy understanding of emotion at their young age, but as they get older they realize what the whole spectrum of feelings has to offer. Emotion is what makes people live their lives differently. You live your life in accordance with emotion. I think that Lear became aware of the pain that he was causing, and that is why he changed. Lear had a maturity growth spurt, even at his late age.

I feel like the feminist outlook is one in the same with growing as a person. If that is the statement that Kahn’s making then I agree. It does put an interesting spin on Lear and I think that he did in a way learn the true meaning of love. He learned that it wasn’t just words, that their had to be some real emotion behind those words to make it work.

Persepolis: Sentiment and Politics

I feel that throughout Persepolis sentiment and politics mix a lot. Her family has their views on the constant changes that Iran is going through, and as a westernized/modern family their opinions are naturally going to be the root of the household.

You constantly see Marji’s family worried about the other families and friends they have. You see the death of Neda and how that affects Marji. After that point, she doesn’t care about being rebellious anymore. I think that is one major example of the politics of Iran and personal feelings coming together.

Probably the biggest example in the entire book is when Marji’s parents send her away to Austria. If it were not for the political problems of Iran, and the stressful situation of the family’s modern lifestyle being threatened, then Marji probably wouldn’t have ended up in another country. The parents care for their daughter mixed with their beliefs and produced an outcome that otherwise would most likely be unnecessary.

Another example that is woven into the story is how Marji’s parents instill their values in her. She grows up seeing her parents at demonstrations and fighting for their rights, and even though some of her personality may be hereditary, she ultimately grows up (aside from a few rebellious deviations from her parents) to feel the same way about the regime’s oppression. Her personality is shaped by the politics of the time period.

Overall, I feel like the statement made my Marji’s father is a wish rather than a fact. It would be nice if the politics didn’t mix with the personal lives of the people in Iran, but sadly that is a far fetched dream. In fact, their lives were built around politics, and while that may not be the best case scenario, it is the truth for Marji and her family.

 

 

The Moviegoer: Is the Search Successful?

At the end of the novel, I feel mixed about whether or not Binx actually reaches the religious stage of existentialism.

I do, however, feel that he has reached the ethical stage. Throughout the entire story, it is very clear that he is looking for something to complete his life. He’s on a quest for something new, something to break out of the “everydayness” that plagues the one’s around him. This is obviously Binx in his aesthetic stage.

I sense a change when I read the epilogue, and towards the end of the book. When he and Kate decide to get married, it isn’t for love, it is for the strange purpose of keeping Kate okay. Or at least that is what I seem to think. Therefore; I feel as though Binx is doing some sort of moral justice by being with her, he may not love her, he even says so. He does care for her though, and it is clear that she is important to him. He does know that he makes her somewhat better, and I think he is content with that. I think he somehow gives his life meaning through helping her.

You can sense a change in Binx in the epilogue. In the start of the novel, he is skeptical of everyone. He just doesn’t seem to be happy about anything. Always conscious of where he is and what he is doing, and how everyone seems to fit in around him. Nothing holds any emotion, it’s all apathetic, and it is even when he’s talking with people that seem to be close to him. He is constantly analyzing and not really living. On page 50 he and his aunt are speaking, but I don’t get a sense of any real feeling, all of his answers are short and unresponsive. She asks Binx “What is it you want out of life, son?”, and he only responds with “I don’t know’m. But I’ll move in whenever you want me.” He shrugs off the question, like it does not matter. It just seems like such an empty response for a loaded question like that one.

Looking at the end of the novel, Binx has seemed to change. He has become responsive emotionally to some degree. When Lonnie is in the hospital dying, he seems to understand something that he did not before. On page 239 when he is talking to Therese and she asks if Lonnie is going  to die, instead of answering with a simple yes (like I imagine aesthetic Binx to answer), he follows up with something comforting. He says: “He told me to give you a kiss and tell you that he loved you.” He is just being extremely good with his brothers and sisters, and I don’t see the old Binx delving into such a sweet conversation with anyone.

The religious stage is a little far fetched for Bolling. He states in the Epilogue (273) that “religion; it is something to be suspicious of”. I don’t believe he’s made that leap of faith thus far if he is still skeptical of it. On page 197 Kate makes another statement that makes me think that Binx may not ever reach that religious stage. She says: “You can do it because you are not religious. You are the unmoved mover. You don’t need God or anyone else..”. There seems to be this overall feeling that Binx is not religious. He avoids religion entirely, so I don’t see him that far yet.

Ultimately, Kate has made me feel as though he has something to take care of. Now I feel as though he wants to be ethically right. That he is no longer looking for a new something everyday, because everyday he is responsible for Kate. Binx doesn’t sound so drab in the epilogue. He sounds like he’s found something to make him content for now.