Gabe’s Comments (group member since Sep 13, 2010)

Gabe’s comments from the Ling AP Lit. and Comp. 2010-11 group.

Elaine Showalter poses the idea that Ophelia, though rarely mentioned, is the most important character in Shakespearean plays on the topic of feminism. Showalter quotes Lee Dewards when she says “We can imagine Hamlet’s story without Ophelia, but Ophelia literally has no story without Hamlet.” Due to the fact that she is not a substancial character she is a blank canvas for symbolism. Ophelia represents the view Shakespeare has regarding to the “bond between female insanity ande female sexuality.” Through phallic imagery and symbollic dialogues Ophelia represents erotomania. This erotomania combined with her insanity forces the connection between her insanity and sexuality, and thus female insanity and sexuality as a whole. This symbol and connection is continued throughout the play until she drowns, symbolic of the ultimate male banishment of women. Furthermore, Showalter explains that drowning is the truly feminine death as water is “the profound and organic symbol of the liquid woman whose eyes are so easily drowned in tears.”

Showalter, Elaine. "Representing Ophelia: Women, Madness, and the Responsiblities of Feminist Criticism." Google Scholar. Web. 20 Mar. 2011. .

I somewhat disagree with Eitan here actually, I feel that Laertes' words here in fact hold a deeper psychological meaning, representing Laertes' remorse for never growing up without a mother. Here Laertes' shows his internal need to avenge his sister.

I don't think that O'brien is makes up the back-story for the man he killed as a coping mechanism. I believe he creates a story to humanize the man he killed. O'brien is so grief-stricken from having taken a man's life that he has to humanize the man he killed. It's not a therapy, but rather a compulsive need of his, which only further griefs him.

I agree with Grace and others who have said that a story is true if you can get the emotion you're trying to get across, to the readers of listeners of the story. It is almost impossible to convey to a reader or listener the full effect of what happened, and embellishment is simply a literary device used to better show the reader what happened.

Piggy-backing off this idea, I think that Mary Anne is a symbol of how power corrupts and is addictive. Moving from a position of no power or control, to a new place in life where she has power, changes her, makes her obsessed with this power. Her bloodlust is merely her just being addicted and corrupted by any sort of power she can get.

I agree, I think Orwell is showing the definite possibility of what happened in 1984 occuring. He shows through Winston's inability to change the world around him, how impossible it would be to return to the normal way of life. He reinforces this through his essay regarding writing.

The saying ignorance is bliss applies greatly here. If one just allows the Party to have it's way, they will convince them that they are happy, and so they will be happy. Winston, however, is unfortunate enough to have the knowledge that the Party is controlling him. And he can't - to the Party's dismay - just let go of this knowledge. And thus, Winston must lead a far more difficult life.

I agree, history, as it is recorded by humans, is always somewhat biased, regardless of whether or not the bias was placed intentionally. I believe, however, that History is absolute. Similiar to truth, we cannot know whether or not we know the absolute history or the subjective, changed history, which is untrue.

I agree with your thought Anjali. It is because only those who are more intelligent and involved with the party are the only ones capable of starting a rebellion, that these are the people under the harshest scrutiny. Party members are under much more intense surveillance than the Proles, and even more effort is spent brainwashing these higher-ups.

I think it is possible to become completely blinded to one's surroundings due to one's upbringing. One example of this actually occurring that jump to mind is nazi raised children. Through the Hitler-Youth many people from a young age were brainwashed into being nazi's, and many of these people later claimed they had no idea that what they were doing was wrong, due to how they were brought up.

I agree with Rachel. The Probes are all capable of rebellion; however, under the oppressive rule of which they under, it is impossible for them to rebel. This is why the Probes need a leader. The Party is aware of this, and this is why The Party takes so many precautions (such as the two minutes hate) to stop each potentially harmful individual. It is because they know, that if one leader escapes their control, a revolution becomes entirely possible.

In order to show the lack of identities of most inhabitants of Oceania in 1984, Orwell writes for very few characters, distinctive identities. The leading female character is Julia, who has many very opposing traits to the protagonist, Winston. Does Orwell use Julia to promote sexism in 1984?

While I cannot be sure of this interpretation, I certainly don't think the possibility of sexism in 1984 can be thrown out. Throughout the novel, Winston seems more complex than Julia. Rather than looking critically at the whole picture it appears Julia can only grasp the singular moment. As Winston puts it Julia is "only a rebel from the waist downwards" (129).

The discussion question both me and arielle came up with was: "Should "Black English" be taught in schools?"

We decided together that "Black English" shouldn't be taught as a replacement to "Standard English". However, "Black English" should be taught as an elective or in college classes where students can opt to take the class or not; this way, students who are truly interested in learning this separate dialect can learn it. We felt the understanding of "Standard English" is very important for communicating with others, as well as, for creating more formal, standardized, pieces of literature; and therefore, "Black English" shouldn't take precedent over it.

Loren, I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but are you positing the argument that seeking religion is a sign of a lack of control over one's own life?

I feel as though this change is better shown not because Celie is addressing her letters to something tangible, but rather that Celie is now addressing her letters to someone who can judge her.

I'd like to clarify my comment first, I didn't mean that the dialect lightens the mood in that it makes the story happy; but, in some cases the writing distracted me from the message of the story.

Also, "Hebrish" is different from either "Konglish" or the dialect in TCP, in that it is mostly English, with Hebrew words thrown in. That makes this dialect more of a travesty, and more funny than that of TCP.