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.