Final exam

My goal in life is, I'll admit, a very new one as far as lifetime goals are concerned. I want to be a professional writer; I just feel that it's what I was meant to be. However, I don't want to write for anyone else about things I do not care about. I suppose I could if I had to in order to make a living, but what kind of life would that be? I want to write my own books, plays, short stories, poetry and anything else that I'm suddenly inspired to write and whenever the mood strikes me. I want to be that weird person who carries my own tape player and recorder around to document ideas that come into my head. I figure it's much more practical than pen and paper; I can't be expected to write as fast as I think.

The study of English is slowly improving the writer that I am and smoothing out the finer details of my grammar and technique. I suppose a downside to being an English major lies in the assumptions made by others. Nowadays, my friends all see me as the go-to person for paper grading, writing assistance, MLA & APA format, etc. The older we get the more papers I read. My friends' nagging is actually good for me because I force myself to memorize this information so that I can help others and inevitably myself.

Being an English major has also begun to force me out of my major problem in life; procrastination. I am a terrible procrastinator and it is the worst when I have papers to write. Procrastination is the main reason why I have none of my ideas typed up. It is pretty sad to be a writer without a drive. I sit and read in between my breaks whatever Agatha Christie novel I have and just think about how amazing she was. Agatha Christie wrote 80 detective novels alone along with her romances and plays. When I read one of her books I am just awed by the amount of time and effort that must have gone into each of her works and just think 'this is what I want. I want to be this.' I feel like I'm slowly reaching that stage in my life. Now, when I get ideas at school, I sit down and pull out my notebook (usually the one that doubles as my English notebook) and write out my stories or ideas. I still don't own a tape player and recorder, but I'm getting there.

I find that my study of English is a lot like my study of Latin: I am annoyed a lot easier now. When I hear people mispronouncing Latin words I can just feel this urge to grit my teeth. The same can pretty much be said about terrible grammar, spelling, and misplaced punctuation. I am also aggravated by the improper use of the word "there/their/they're". I really do not understand what the confusion is but I digress. I know that my reading and writing interests have the potential to take me very far in my chosen field, but I know that most of it is up to me.

Many years ago, I wrote two lines to a poem. Those two lines would remain two lines for several years. I remember the night I was inspired to finish that poem: I was in a car waiting for my mother when I suddenly remembered those two lines and then proceeded to finish the entirety of the poem while I sat there. It took me roughly ten minutes to finish it, another five or so for my mother to return, and then another hour before I returned home to get it onto paper. The feeling I had when I looked at my finished work was one of pride and fulfillment. I want to be able to feel that for the rest of my life.

Larry David episode

I didn't see the episode as a mockery of religion at all. I think it just exposed the fanaticism and commercialism of our society in regards to our beliefs. Many people take things too seriously in life and don't take the time to laugh at themselves or listen to the opinions of others. Larry David just seems to be very good at pointing those kind of things out. I remember the one other episode I saw. I believe his mother died, and he realized that whenever he told people that he tended to get away with things. So he eventually started abusing that excuse. I personally found the episode very funny and insightful. I looked at it from the perspective of how common that behavior is; preying on the sympathy of others and allowing people to abuse a situation. As a society, in certain situations we allow ourselves to excuse others for their own wrongdoings. That episode was just a way of forcing the audience to take an introspective look at itself. The religion episode used parody to make a point that I think many people have contemplated but don't discuss in public out of fear: our beliefs are kind of silly.

All religions and beliefs look foolish in one way or another. All-powerful beings that turn into animals to have affairs with innocent girls? Superpowers such as turning water into wine or feeding a thousand people on one loaf of bread? Or even believing that Santa Claus knows every minute of our lives. Who comes up with this stuff? Isn't it logical to think that some things just sound weird when you actually think of them LOGICALLY? I suppose then that that's the point of faith: to believe in the ridiculous. We should all try to remind ourselves to stop taking everything so seriously all of the time. If someone tells you they do not believe in the same things you do or think your beliefs are weird then that should be acceptable. You shouldn't feel obligated to defend yourself or convert the other person "over to your side." This is not a competition. There is no almighty scoreboard tallying off your number of conversions, and if there is who cares? Life is way to short and fast to worry about what other people think of your beliefs. We would laugh a lot more if we took the time to see things from another perspective.

Geography III

I think this has to be the first work during the course of the class that I just did not like. In fact the first 25 pages or so I just kept thinking 'what am I reading?' and 'I am so lost.' It's not that I am not a fan of poetry; I love poetry. However, Elizabeth Bishop's brand just did not appeal to me. Most of the poems read like a story and yet they were a terribly boring read for me. For instance, the poem Crusoe in England went on for the longest time about "islands" and the life found on the islands. She wrote about the clouds and lava and the land and I already hold distaste for scenes written in detail in books much less in poetry. Not to mention that everything felt so confusing to me and I almost felt like she was writing in a language and making references to a culture that I was completely ignorant of. How does one go from talking about islands to speaking about home-brewed berry tea to talking about their lack of knowledge and expect it all to make sense anyway? Her poems, especially this one, are all just chopped up sentences that make a story and yet almost rob themselves of all rhythm. It was so frustrating for me. I will say though that the part about dreaming about slitting a baby's throat while thinking it was a baby goat was funny and by far the best part of that poem. It really just came out of no where.

I know I should be more tolerant and open-minded; we did just go over close readings after all. When I look deeper at the poems I do find symbolism, and there certainly were a couple of poems at the end that I liked (Poem among them). If I looked even closer at the poems I could find deeper meanings in every line, but I'm not sure I'd be willing to take that kind of time. I just have an adverse reaction to sentences like "Lose something every day" (One Art) and "No foot could endure it, shoes are too thin" (Night City) . On that note I will end this entry with saying this: what's the deal with her obsession with lava and dogs that only bark once?!

Glengarry Glen Ross

My first impression of the book was that it was very "Death of a Salesman." The way Levene is presented in the entire opening scene just reminded me of the other play where an older man is begging another to give him a chance and is desperately trying to reclaim his former glory. Williamson on the other hand had a very apathetic response to him which made me dislike him for the rest of the play. Strangely enough I think I like the scene between Aaronow and Moss the most because it seemed to have more humor and "fast-talk" than the others. The repetitive use of "talking" and "What did I say?" take on a whole other meaning according to Moss. It was almost like Moss was pulling a Jedi mindtrick on Aaronow; who is really a sympathetic character to me because he just became caught up in something beyond his control.

I am confused however why Moss would tell his plan to two people, Aaronow and Levene, if he had intended for Aaronow to do it. Granted, Aaronow did not go through with the plan anyway, but Moss had to know that Aaronow would not have done it regardless. I think that that says something about David Mamet's talent; if he can introduce his characters in such a way that you can tell what kind of person he is just from what he says and without a backstory.

I actually liked the play, even though it really seemed to lack any form of actual action so I am intrigued to see how it turned out in movie form. However, I did take note of the fact that none of the characters are particularly likeable. In fact they all exhibit different traits that make them completely unappealing as human beings. Which is ironic considering most of them are displaying some of the baser human traits such as greed, pride, and envy. The play also seems to have a fascination with the "7 deadly sins" or that could just be me drawing my own parallel. In any case, just when you begin to gravitate towards a character (like I did in regards to Levene and or Roma), by the end of the play you are completely blindsided by their darker natures (Levene is the theif and Roma wants to take half of his commissions). Mamet pretty much had a lot to say about the dark side of people.

On another note, there are not women in this play only a reference to a couple. The one we do hear a bit about is Lingk's wife and she seems to be a tyrant in regards to her husband. So, unlike King Lear, there doesn't seem to be a positive image of women in this play either. Mamet seems to put us all on the same scale of negative traits and personalities. There are no happy endings for anyone.

King Lear

Have you ever read something and when you were finished thought 'what the heck just happened?' That was pretty much what this was for me. I have read Shakespeare's tragedies before and know that death is common throughout the plays and especially in the final act. However, it still strikes me as funny that suddenly the majority of the cast is dying and we never see how most of it happens. For instance, we are suddenly alerted to the fact that Goneril has poisoned Regan and she is in fact dying. What I want to know is when did we ever discuss poisoning anyone and when did this even happen? On top of that, after Regan dies Goneril does too; apparently by her own making. Why did she do this again? Did she not want to be prosecuted? Did she suddenly feel guilty about everything she'd done? So few questions answered about that. Of course, then we also have the "confrontation of brothers" and Edmund ends up fatally wounded, but stays alive long enough to participate in conversation and alert everyone to his plans to have Lear and Cordelia executed. Of course, it's already too late and after Edmund dies, we find Cordelia also dead. In grief, Lear announces he killed the one who did it and later kills himself. How he managed THAT I haven't the slightest idea. The body count of this play was all in all, pretty funny.

I really liked the play. Even though I am a little biased when it comes to Shakespeare, I thought it was quite emotional and sad. It is easy to see why this play has so many renditions of it. Although I think plays, especially Shakespeare's, are hard to understand without the visual aids. Or if someone is not familiar with the language. Getting sidetracked by footnotes isn't fun and can easily lose the mood of the entire piece. Not to mention the fact that most earlier works are notorious for having very little stage direction or scene description and, if you're not used to this idea, it can be hard to get involved in the play. Some people just don't respond easily to the thought of coming up with the entire interpretation on their own. However, the beauty in Shakespeare's works is that almost everything is up to interpretation. So many people can receive the wonder of the language and story with the emotion and images of their own minds. For those reasons alone I don't think that Shakespeare is for everyone. That's not to say that only superior readers or certain people would understand and appreciate it more, it's just not a genre that everyone can easily adapt to. Plays, unfortunately, seem to suffer for that reason.

Persepolis

I actually wasn't as big a fan of Persepolis as I was for The Moviegoer. I had read a little of Persepolis last year and I had liked it then, but when I read the entire first part as a whole it seemed a little irritating. I enjoyed the story itself; I would have even preferred it to stand on its own as a novel. It was really the sense of humor and the artwork that sometimes bothered me. I would be reading the novel and would be really into it then all of a sudden there'd be a joke thrown in and I'd think "well THAT killed the mood." On top of that, whenever a response to an emotional scene was drawn, the crying of the characters always seemed so exaggerated and over-the-top to me. I personally have always had an aversion to crying so I suppose that could be a part of my criticism, but I don't believe that everyone falls to the ground heaving and sobbing when they cry either. However, I don't write any of this to draw away from Satrapi's obvious talents. I do believe that she is a strong artist and writer, but I still would not choose to read it on my own time.

*EDIT*
The conversations with God in the novel were something that I held a particular fondness for. However, I didn't look at it as a religious reflection; more of the naivety of a child. As the novel progresses she loses the ability and desire to have those open conversations with God. Which is really a reflection of human beings in general. Usually, the more tragedy someone experiences the less likely he or she is to hold strong to any religious beliefs. Tragedy has a tendency to bring a person's faith into question. Humans are historically regarded as very curious in nature; hence the creation of many gods/goddesses/religions/etc. It was caused by our innate desire to search for explanations about the things around us. That being said, it is reasonable for a person to try to find the reason and cause for a tragedy if only to have something or someone to blame. Often times the person blamed is a religious figure. Once Marji loses her beloved uncle, she banishes God from her life. Even though expressed through cartoons, it is a very realistic topic. The novel then jumps in her age. Which could be a metaphorical way of expressing her need to grow up really fast. All-in-all I think it was a very good way to discuss a sensitive topic.

The Moviegoer

I actually liked the book. Which is kind of surprising considering if I had been given the choice I would not have picked it up on my own. Although my tastes for reading are pretty limited when it comes to "reading for enjoyment" so it's nice to read things that are out of character for me. The overall book was interesting especially for a book where there isn't really any action. I mean the book really is about character analysis and finding a person's meaning or purpose in life. Which seems to say that each person's purpose in life is different depending on the person. So then the key question was really to find out what Binx's purpose in life was. It was really one of those "you go around the world looking for something only to end up back home and realize it's been there all along" type of stories. I believe I read something like it from Edgar Allen Poe once...

I found the main characters all rather interesting; especially Kate and Binx. They were both arrogant and socially awkward yet acknowledged their own flaws in an almost dismissive way. Yet that almost seems to make them both more realistic. There's a constant search by all the characters to find a purpose for Binx and Kate and yet their lives end up constantly revolved around the other. I actually liked how the book ended because I do think there was a certain "peace of mind" in it.

*EDIT* I've decided to do my research paper on the book. I was suddenly inspired by all the pop culture references in the book such as the references to Nieman Marcus, William Holden, etc. Though I do confess that my familiarity of these terms is mostly due to episodes of "I Love Lucy." The entirety of the book seems obsessed with making references to radio, magazines, television, movies, and other forms of popular culture and each is usually subtle in nature. What is interesting about the book is that Binx makes references to famous actors and tries to mimic them; he behaves at work in a "Gregory Peckish" kind of way. Also, Aunt Emily is obsessed with making Binx into a romantic sort of hero that one would find in a book; she is sadly disappointed with the final result.

The interactions between Kate and Binx seems to lack large pop culture references. Instead it focuses on deep introspective thought usually on the part of Binx towards Kate. She repeatedly denies any connection to him and tells him "they are not a pair of any sort." Yet, Binx tries to cling the idea of a bond between them and inevitably finds one. Kate compliments him in a way that is not obvious to those around them, but is reasonable to the two of them. At home, Kate is the distraught, frazzled one that the family worries about. However, once in Chicago is it Binx, not Kate, that panics. He fears that the "genie-soul of Chicago" will inevitably catch up to them and yet Kate is "jolly." She takes up the lead while in Chicago, but once home they both return to their former roles. I remain strongly attached to this book and hope to convey that through my work.