It takes place in a coast village, somewhere. The time is the past. The story begins with the Old Man and it ends with him flying off until Elisenda can no longer see him in the distance. It takes place over about 5-7 years span of time. Part of the "Angel's" stay can be signified as how amazed the people of the village are by the oddity of his appearance and mannerisms. The other half of the story the village treats him like a circus freak and he is no longer an amazing creature, but rather a developing pebble in their shoes. All of these things take place until the "Angel" is practically forgotten about.
In the beginning Pelayo, one of the men living in the village, is the first to discover the "old man" in his backyard. When he finally steps closer to the man he sees, "an old man, a very old man, lying face down in the mud, who, in spite of his tremendous efforts, couldn’t get up, impeded by his enormous wings.” Pelayo's wife, Elisenda, also sees the angel and they decide to lock him up in their chicken coop for the night only to see neighbors from all over the village looking at the mysterious creature. At that point everyone knew that Pelayo had found something profound and mysterious. When people visited the "Old Man" they treated him like an animal. They would throw him food every now and then. More and more people from far away came to see the man. With the way Marquez writes it almost sounds like people were living in a warped reality, especially with how they were treating the "Old Man". Even with some treating him like he should be “five-star general in order to win all wars," and some treating him like the scum of the earth he still took "no part in his own act." Even with all of the abuses, harsh words and seemingly other inhumane travesties he still was virtuous. The seemingly sad part of all of this is when the Spider Lady speaks up about her past and how because she didn't listen to her parents that she had been turned into a spider. The good thing about telling her story is that there is no speculation and people in the village were more inclined in their understanding of how she came to be that way. With the "Old Man" because he refused to speak, he was ridiculed and misunderstood. Even still, he remained silent. After the Spider Lady speaks of her story, people leave the "Old Man" alone. They no longer want to hear his story, if there even is one. He is seemingly forgotten. Later on in the story, we find that Pelayo and Elisenda become wealthy off of the "Old Man's" oddity. They build a mansion and forget about their chicken coop. The "Old Man" was basically left to die, but despite him being neglected he still lived. When the village doctor went to inspect him he found the "Old Man" was alive. The doctor also wondered why he only had wings and why the rest of humanity didn't have them. In the end the "Angel" regains is strength and as Elisenda looks out onto the horizon he “no longer [is] an annoyance in her life but an imaginary dot on the horizon of the sea.”
Where are the specifics? I suppose as the reader we are the ones that must create them. But much like Waiting for Godot, do we take it for what it is or find some kind of parallel with the rest of the world? Obviously this story is very complex. If one does not take the time to entirely read the text and digest it, they will get lost in it's meaning and words. For example, the sentence that reads, "...that his passivity was not that of a hero taking his ease but that of a cataclysm response." First off, that is very well written. I admire this write greatly and I sense his passion for writing in every word that is printed in the page of our Literature book. For me the sentence seem to stick out over some of the others in this text. When I look at this sentence in comparison to the rest of the text I look toward myself. Do I act passive like a hero taking ease, or do I stay silent and wait to explode?
This story in general is amazingly written. When people seemingly come into our lives out of nowhere we are quick to judge. I've been a person that has tried to never do that. We all judge in someways, but I really try to refrain. When I let myself open to the possibilities that people may bring to my life, that's when God uses me and them the most. If the people in this story would've just treated this "Old Man" with some dignity, maybe he would've had something so amazingly brilliant to give to society. Said part is, we'll never know. The Angel or Old Man just flies off into the sun, what if? Just what if? What is Elisenda would've allowed him to speak? What if they would've cared for him rather than leave him to die in the public's eye?
What ifs are a major part of what makes this story so interesting, yet tragic at the same time. The second part of the title is labeled "A Tale for Children"; Professor Corrigan asked us in class why we think this is even apart of the title. I thought about it and I really think that it's a good tale for children because it teaches them to not leave out anyone and to look at all the possibilities that life has yet to bring them.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Symbolism: A stop sign or a green light?
In some ways symbolism can be viewed as both stop signs and/or green lights. I know when I read something symbols tend to lead me into rabbit holes because I am a deep thinker, but symbols are also why I want to be an English teacher one day. Symbols create passion in a story. For example, Sonny's blues was a deep story for me, why? Because the music invoked a long ago passion that was restored within only reading a few words about the effects music had on the people in that story.
Symbols can help a story develop sometimes more than the characters/plot can. Another example is in Waiting for Godot. The symbols of the hats, shoes, tree and other props make it seem like the set itself is useless, but in reality...without it, we wouldn't understand the outside surroundings and how they effect the inward emotions. What would the story in Waiting for Godot be like if the characters didn't look inside their hats? What would the story be like if it didn't start off with one of the main characters trying to take of his boot?
Symbols can also hinder some stories. When watching a movie like The Labyrinth the title itself seems like a symbol. We all know what a labyrinth is, but in that movie it becomes too literal until the end, when you realize why the labyrinth was there in the first place and why the people (or symbols) were strategically placed throughout the storyline. The main character's journey is filled with props that she must use to her advantage, while also interacting with the symbols around her.
I wondered about symbols that surround me everyday. Something as simple as a handicap sign, I can understand. But then I thought, what if I were blind? What new form would such a simple sign like a handicapped symbol change into? While walking down El Prado I see many people holding books and book bags; because of that I assume that they are going to class or teaching one, but I'm probably wrong 45% of the time. Symbols can also be misleading. I know when I say something it can mean something else. Symbols are also like that. When most see a green light it means go, but in other countries it could mean something completely different.
Symbols can help a story develop sometimes more than the characters/plot can. Another example is in Waiting for Godot. The symbols of the hats, shoes, tree and other props make it seem like the set itself is useless, but in reality...without it, we wouldn't understand the outside surroundings and how they effect the inward emotions. What would the story in Waiting for Godot be like if the characters didn't look inside their hats? What would the story be like if it didn't start off with one of the main characters trying to take of his boot?
Symbols can also hinder some stories. When watching a movie like The Labyrinth the title itself seems like a symbol. We all know what a labyrinth is, but in that movie it becomes too literal until the end, when you realize why the labyrinth was there in the first place and why the people (or symbols) were strategically placed throughout the storyline. The main character's journey is filled with props that she must use to her advantage, while also interacting with the symbols around her.
I wondered about symbols that surround me everyday. Something as simple as a handicap sign, I can understand. But then I thought, what if I were blind? What new form would such a simple sign like a handicapped symbol change into? While walking down El Prado I see many people holding books and book bags; because of that I assume that they are going to class or teaching one, but I'm probably wrong 45% of the time. Symbols can also be misleading. I know when I say something it can mean something else. Symbols are also like that. When most see a green light it means go, but in other countries it could mean something completely different.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Book made into Film
Watching Godot in class was somewhat eye opening. If you don't go into the play with an open mind you automatically shut off from the humor that occurs within the first few seconds of the play. In the movie, it seems like it goes faster on the screen as opposed to reading the story in Beckett's book. The two men in the beginning during the film seem even more in depth than I could've possibly imagined when simply reading the play in a book.
Usually I am one of those people that likes to read a story before hitting the theaters, but in this case I think the film adaptation really strikes a literary cord. I found all the characters to be astounding. It kept you wondering why the characters asked what they asked, or did what they did. At one point I felt incredibly sorry for Lucky who has to carry all of Pozzo's things. In the book for some odd reason I did not feel as sorry for him. Also, I thought it ironic that his name is Lucky...
Because we did not get to finish the film in class, I was somewhat disappointed. I really was getting into understanding the characters. The fact that the play is very "short" answered and a question is usually answered with another question leads to the assumption that this play is obviously talking somewhat about God. The title itself has the word God in it!
In my opinion the film was good. I thought it would be boring. I thought it would be like watching an old 1920s silent film. The actors did a great job at portraying the characters and they did great with what little plot was given.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
A theme picked out from Godot
Godot. G-O-D-O-T. GO-DOT. All different ways to spell Godot. Funny how one name seems to shape an entire play. A name of a man that NEVER shows up, nonetheless.
I'm going with the concept that "We are not supposed to understand what is going on." When reading the pages of this play I realize that there are meanings weaved in and out of the words on the pages, but it is left up to interpretation. But what if the interpretation is that there is no interpretation? I'm sure the author had it in his mind that after looking over all of his work he probably thought that this was an interesting piece of work. How did it become well known literature? Why are we reading it right now?
Literature is more than a beginning and an ending, it's about a journey. This play is about the journey these two men, DiDi and GoGo go through. Have you ever gone on a joy ride? Have you ever just wanted to go for a drive because you wanted to get away from it all? When doing that, there is no set destination. We just feel our way through the twists and turns of the road. Sometimes there are traffic lights to make us aware of the intersections we are facing, at other times there are absolutely no lights stopping anyone from going anywhere.
Is that what it is like for the men in this play? Is there destination chosen? Sure they know who they are waiting to see, but are they truly looking for a definite person or are they just sitting there for the mere enjoyment of each others company? I think it is a bit of both really.
I used to say to my best friend, "Oh, we'll one day be two old bitties out on our front porches playing chess and sipping on ice tea. Just the two of us." The truth is, we have no idea if that day will ever come. We don't know if we will live that long to have that "dream" come true. What we do have is a vision of what we see for ourselves in the future.
Waiting for Godot is a piece that keeps on creating. Like I said in class, God is still creating and I think this is a simple example of that in our very own hands. This book allows us to fill in the gaps that aren't concrete with ideas. It allows us to mold and shape the characters even further than what the text states.
When reading this I will remember that it's like living a journey, not about seeking a destination.
I'm going with the concept that "We are not supposed to understand what is going on." When reading the pages of this play I realize that there are meanings weaved in and out of the words on the pages, but it is left up to interpretation. But what if the interpretation is that there is no interpretation? I'm sure the author had it in his mind that after looking over all of his work he probably thought that this was an interesting piece of work. How did it become well known literature? Why are we reading it right now?
Literature is more than a beginning and an ending, it's about a journey. This play is about the journey these two men, DiDi and GoGo go through. Have you ever gone on a joy ride? Have you ever just wanted to go for a drive because you wanted to get away from it all? When doing that, there is no set destination. We just feel our way through the twists and turns of the road. Sometimes there are traffic lights to make us aware of the intersections we are facing, at other times there are absolutely no lights stopping anyone from going anywhere.
Is that what it is like for the men in this play? Is there destination chosen? Sure they know who they are waiting to see, but are they truly looking for a definite person or are they just sitting there for the mere enjoyment of each others company? I think it is a bit of both really.
I used to say to my best friend, "Oh, we'll one day be two old bitties out on our front porches playing chess and sipping on ice tea. Just the two of us." The truth is, we have no idea if that day will ever come. We don't know if we will live that long to have that "dream" come true. What we do have is a vision of what we see for ourselves in the future.
Waiting for Godot is a piece that keeps on creating. Like I said in class, God is still creating and I think this is a simple example of that in our very own hands. This book allows us to fill in the gaps that aren't concrete with ideas. It allows us to mold and shape the characters even further than what the text states.
When reading this I will remember that it's like living a journey, not about seeking a destination.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Waiting for Godot
Strange. Peculiar. Odd.
All three describe the way I feel about the Godot story. Seemingly waiting for a man that may never come is hardly interesting, but what becomes interesting is what they do while waiting for Godot. GoGo and DiDi's characters come out. I am baffled by a story such as this that begins with one of them trying to get a boot off. How does one make a story line out of a beginning like that!?
The strange part about this story so far is that the scene is simple, yet they have a way of making things complex and misshapen. They talk about the Bible and other things that in someways have nothing to do with each other, yet have EVERYTHING to do with each other.
I wonder if these two men even know Godot or if they are waiting for him like a child waits for a mailman to give him the package he's been waiting for. When Estragon states, "There is nothing to be done." Does that imply that nothing IS to literally be done throughout the entire play? Because to an outsider reading this play for the first time, it sure feels that way intentionally.
Vladimir takes on a whole new ball of wax for me. He talks, a lot. His mind seems to never stop racing with things to talk about. When Estragon doesn't feel like having a conversation the whole time , Vladimir gets frustrated and says things like "GoGo why can't you return the ball every once and awhile?" I think that's a play on words and conversation. At first when I read that, I thought he was talking to a dog. The way the conversation usually plays out, it seems more of a cat and mouse kind of dialog.
So far, from what I have read, it seems like the two men are close and support each others dreams and ambition. I think they also support each others ideas on topics, but also challenge each other to understand their surroundings deeper and more meaningfully.
Waiting for a person that may never come seems odd to me, but I also see the deeper element into why this play was a success. As I read on further and come to what will probably be an open-ended conclusion, I will be able to state more about Godot. As of right now, the play is rattling my brain and the characters are hilarious!
All three describe the way I feel about the Godot story. Seemingly waiting for a man that may never come is hardly interesting, but what becomes interesting is what they do while waiting for Godot. GoGo and DiDi's characters come out. I am baffled by a story such as this that begins with one of them trying to get a boot off. How does one make a story line out of a beginning like that!?
The strange part about this story so far is that the scene is simple, yet they have a way of making things complex and misshapen. They talk about the Bible and other things that in someways have nothing to do with each other, yet have EVERYTHING to do with each other.
I wonder if these two men even know Godot or if they are waiting for him like a child waits for a mailman to give him the package he's been waiting for. When Estragon states, "There is nothing to be done." Does that imply that nothing IS to literally be done throughout the entire play? Because to an outsider reading this play for the first time, it sure feels that way intentionally.
Vladimir takes on a whole new ball of wax for me. He talks, a lot. His mind seems to never stop racing with things to talk about. When Estragon doesn't feel like having a conversation the whole time , Vladimir gets frustrated and says things like "GoGo why can't you return the ball every once and awhile?" I think that's a play on words and conversation. At first when I read that, I thought he was talking to a dog. The way the conversation usually plays out, it seems more of a cat and mouse kind of dialog.
So far, from what I have read, it seems like the two men are close and support each others dreams and ambition. I think they also support each others ideas on topics, but also challenge each other to understand their surroundings deeper and more meaningfully.
Waiting for a person that may never come seems odd to me, but I also see the deeper element into why this play was a success. As I read on further and come to what will probably be an open-ended conclusion, I will be able to state more about Godot. As of right now, the play is rattling my brain and the characters are hilarious!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)