Chapter 25-
When you are reading something that is not of the same time period or of any familiarity to you it's important for you to understand what you are reading without necessarily accepting it. Reading something such as Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew nowadays, one would thing it to be almost entirely and unbearably sexist, but as Foster suggests, you have to read without your eyes. It was the beliefs of how women should operate and behave that makes this story relevant and "the norm" in the time period that it was written in. The young man who is trying to "tame" his wife throughout the story in order to get her to fulfill his wishes. It was very common for men to treat women more as servants that to treat them as an actual wife (or daughter). But today, it's highly sexist and a situation like this would most likely not exist in today's society (at least in America), which makes this story a perfect example of a piece of literature that requires you to look at it from a different perspective, or set of eyes, in order to take in all of its wonder.
Chapter 26-
Shakespeare's Macbeth could be used as an example of an ironic piece of writing. Macbeth pretends that he is loyal to King Duncan, but in reality he is plotting to murder him. Duncan is unaware of this deception but it is relatively obvious to the audience. Macbeth murders the king, and thus becomes king, just as the witches had stated in a prophesy, but the prophesy wasn't all that Macbeth expected it to be. One would thing that being king would make someone happy. He'd be rich, he'd have as much power as he could handle, people would "respect" him. What I'm getting at is that Macbeth only saw one side of the prophesy whilst the witches watched with evil smirks on their faces as the irony unfolded and Macbeth's life crumbled. Everything turned out how Macbeth had hoped, but he was not happy as king, which is ironic in itself. It eventually ends as Macbeth's every effort was pointless, his actions to gain power meant nothing, especially after he is dead.
Chapter 27-
What does the story signify?
What I felt while reading this story was a strong struggle in the heart and mind of an "upper crust" female toward the amount of sympathy she should show toward those who do not live in the same sort of conditions that she does. She is very conflicted about how she should react to the sudden death of one of the lower class member's husband, and how she should express some sort of respect for the family despite the hierarchy difference. To top it all, it happens right before a large gathering that has been planned to host a lot of other upper crust people.
How does it signify?
I really struggled with answering this question, but finally came to a rough conclusion. The whole upper and lower class struggle is apparent in this short story, so I see the location of the housing of both classes significant to the struggle? I'm still roughly making a comparison. The Sheridan's house is located on a hill, above the small, less attractive cottages of the less fortunate members of the lower class. This signifies the placement of both classes on the hierarchal ladder. The most successful and wealthy live above, while the less successful and poor dwell below.
To my surprise I guess I could award myself with an A (not my choice, but Foster's)! I somewhat captured the gist of things while not eloquently expressing it as one of his former students did, but what can I say?
The comparing of Laura to Persephone right off the bat baffles me because of my newfound knowledge of the presence of intertextuality in many things that I read every day. Second of all it reveals how much thought goes into some pieces of work, even the short stories. In the end, I am still amazed how much I like this simple little short story, and the connection of Persephone and Laura thickens my appreciation and brings me to a new level of appreciation.
No comments:
Post a Comment