IOP Journal #5

I figured out the last folktale I am going to use. For the Personification of Death I am going to use the folktale, Jack and the Devil.
Jack was a cruel man "who treated his wife like a dog" and "his children like dirt." He also drank a lot. The Devil came to get him. When he saw the Devil, he begged the Devil to give him 1 more year on earth. He tricked the Devil into changing into a ten cent piece and locked the Devil in his purse. The Devil couldn't get out of it because the clasp was in the shape of a cross. Jack let the Devil out on the condition of him getting one more year on earth. After the Devil left, he said that he would repent. He didn't and a year later the Devil came to get him again. Again, he tricked the Devil. The Devil climbed a tree to get some apples and he couldn't get down because Jack etched a cross in the trunk. He took the cross off of the trunk on the condition that the Devil left him alone forever. When he died, he couldn't get into Heaven, and then at the gate of Hell, the Devil wouldn't let him in. The Devil told him to go back where he came from. He asked for a lantern to be able to see in teh dark. he still got lost. "Jack, he took the fire. But he got himself lost. They say he is still wanderin in the dark. Some say you can see his little light a-bobbin this-away and that-away when the night is the coldest and the chill is deepest." (The People Could Fly pg 126-132)

This story shows how death is inevitable. The Devil represents Death in this folktale. The Devil keeps coming back again and again until Jack finally dies. I am also using the quote Janie says about death. The quote shows the same thing.

IOP Journal #4

Background on Zora Neale Hurston:

• born between 1891-1901
• died in 1960 poor and obsolete
• part of the Harlem Renaissance
• wrote Their Eyes Were Watching God in seven weeks
• was a writer, folklorist, and a cultural anthropologist
• she went around in the South collecting African-American folktales because she did not trust "whites" to collect them and not change them

Folktales I am going to use:
Testing the Good Lord - example of the motif of spirituality
- "One day Brer Lizard and Deacon Frog were trying to get through a crack in a split-rail fence. Now, in those days, Brer Lizard sat up straight like Deacon Frog does today. Old Deacon Frog said: "I'll get through this crack here if the Good Lord spares me." He tried it and, bye and bye, he squeezed through just fine. Brer Lizard was more uppity. He said, "I'll get through this crack here whether the Lord spares me or not." He tried it, but, kerflip, down came a log and smashed him flat. That's why the lizard is flat today and crawls in the dust on his belly, while the frog sits straight and hops around" (AFRO-AMERICAN FOLKTALES: STORIES FROM BLACK TRADITIONS IN THE NEW WORLD EDITED AND SELECTED BY ROGER D. ABRAHAMS pg 74).

Symbolism of animals - He Lion, Bruh Bear, and Bruh Rabbit (THE PEOPLE COULD FLY: American Black Folktales)
Story of how he Lion would go around roaring "ME AND MYSELF, ME AND MYSELF" all the time. All the small animals were afraid to come out because they were afraid of the lion. Finally, the small animals went to see Bruh Bear and Bruh Rabbit to tell them of their problem with he Lion. Bruh Bear and Bruh Rabbit went to see he Lion. Bruh Rabbit said that the real king of the forest was Man, so he took he Lion to see Man. He Lion started roaring "ME AND MYSELF" so that Man would see him, while Bruh Bear and Bruh Rabbit hid in the bushes. Man shot he Lion. "Awhile after he Lion met Man, things were some better in teh forest. Bruh Bear knew what Man looked like so he could keep out of his way. That rabbit always did know to keep out of Man's way. The little anials could go out in the mornin because he Lion was more peaceable. He didn't walk around roarin at the top of his voice all the time. And when he Lion did lift that voice of his, it was like, "Me and Myself and Man. Me and Myself and Man." Like that. Wasn't too loud atall."

I am still trying to find a good folktale for the "Personification of Death" and good examples from Their Eyes Were Watching God.

IOP Journal #3

Yesterday, I figured out my three points on my IOP. I also figured out what my thesis statement would be and how I would do my presentation. I am going to be doing a powerpoint presentation.

My thesis statement is going to be "In Their Eyes Were Watching God, Zora Neale Hurston is influenced by African-American folktales through images of animals, spirituality, and death, which reflect the importance of culture in life.

I will probably revise it a little bit, to make it sound better. My three points wil be the symbolism of animals, the motif of spirituality, and the personification of death. For all of my points I will be giving examples from both Their Eyes Were Watching God and the African American folktales. Then I will be explaining what the quotes are saying and then I will analyze them.

For the symbolism of animals, I will be giving the examples of mules for sure; maybe the vultures, dog, and cow in Their Eyes Were Watching God. Then I will be sharing some animal folktale(s), depending on how long they are. The talking animal folktales usually represent a slave and a slavemaster, the slave sometimes being smarter but "oppressed" (I need to think of the correct word). The mule in Their Eyes Were Watching God represents someone being oppressed.

For the motif of spirituality, I will be showing how the endless horizon and nature show spirituality. There are also folktales of the supernatural, like where there is a higher being controlling life. (What is the analysis for this?)

For the personification of death, I will be showing how "Death with the square-toes" is like the death in the folktales. The death in folktales, is usually represented by the devil. (Again I need to find out the analysis for this)

IOP Journal #2

Organization

Today I decided how I would organize my IOP. I am first going introduce my topic, which is how the African-American folktales influenced Zora Neale Hurston's writing of the book, Their Eyes Were Watching God. I am then going to go into a little bit of background on Zora Neale Hurston and explain why the folktales influenced her writing (ex. She was a cultural anthropologist, so she really liked the folktales. She spent some time in the South, going around and collecting folktales). Next I might or might not do an overview of Their Eyes Were Watching God.

It would depend on the amount of time I have left. After all the background information, I will introduce my thesis. Then I will ask the class if they know of any African-American folktales. I will then say how there are many versions of the same folktale in different countries. I will also ask if they have ever heard of "Brer Rabbit" or any other "Brer____" story because they are examples of African-American folktales with morals to them. Some of these stories were designed to teach children a lesson (definition here?). Next I will show the class an example of a short or long African-American folktale (depending on the amount of time I have left). I read a lot of the folktales of that time, and have found that many of them involve talking animals. The animals are all symbols of the slave or slaveowner. A lot of the stories also involve the Devil. I am still trying to find connections in the stories to Their Eyes Were Watching God.

I will next share my three points and go into analysis for each one. All three are going to be connections in the folktales to Their Eyes Were Watching God. The analysis will include why, she made these connections. I am still trying to figure out my points in the novel.

IOP Journal #1

Brainstorming and "Hardships"

For my IOP I will be discussing how African-American folktales influenced Zora Neale Hurston's Their Eyes Were Watching God. I had a bit of trouble coming up with this topic. I originally wanted to compare Hurston's real life with elements in her novel. I decided to talk about folktales because it is an interesting and unique topic.

I have been looking online for African-American folktales. I have also been looking in the library. I had not had much luck procuring any good folktales. I then started searching for African-American folktales connected with Zora Neale Hurston. I found a book called Every Tongue Got to Confess by Zora Neale Hurston. It is the third book in a series by Zora Neale Hurston. These books are collections of African-American folktales.

Now I am trying to find connections in the novel and in the folktales that would show how the folktales influenced Hurston's writing. For example, I am looking for any themes of death in the folktales and I am looking at how they show the death. I am then going to compare that to how Hurston shows death in her novels. Then I will try and analyze this connection by showing what the folktales do and to what extent they influence Their Eyes Were Watching God.

Blood Wedding Journal #3

"Not rounding off, but opening out." Comment upon the way the writers deal with the ending in relation to the whole. In your answer you should refer to two or three of the works you have studied.

That phrase relates how the authors end the play, yet there is still a story to be told. In "Oedipus the King," Sophocles has the last scene being that Oedipus is cast out of Thebes by Creon. There are still many unanswered questions left. The authors end one story in a sense, but set up a new one in the process. Since Oedipus has just been exiled, the readers are left to wonder what happens to Oedipus. Does he just go and live in the mountains alone? Does he ever see his daughters again? The last time in the play that Oedipus sees his daughters is when they are "wrenched loose from his grasp" (Sophocles 1674). By ending the play with Oedipus being banished, Sophocoles lets readers guess on what happens to Oedipus or continue the story in their own way.

In "The Wild Duck," Ibsen also doesn't round "off, but opens out." In the end, readers are left to guess as to what happens between Hjalmar and Gina after their daughter dies. By the end of the play, it is implied that they "made up," but no one is sure. Ibsen opens up the story for readers to continue by leaving unanswered questions. What is Gregers going to do? What is going to become of Hjalmar and Gina? What is going to happen to the wild duck now that Hedvig is dead? Ibsen ends the play, but at the same times leaves it open.

In "Blood Wedding," Lorca does the same thing. He ends the play with Leonardo's and the Bridegroom's deaths. Although the play is over, the question is still left as to what is to become of the bride. The readers can again keep on guessing as to what is going to happen.

Just because the plays are over, does not mean that the stories are over. By ending the play, the authors leave many unanswered questions of things that happened earlier in the plays.

Blood Wedding Journal #2

Diary entry from Bride.



Next Thursday, I marry the Bridegroom. He came to visit me today to finalize the day of the wedding. It took him and his mother four hours to come here. I heard a rider in the distance, and saw that it was Leonardo. Why does he still come here? We are not engaged anymore. I am now going to marry one of the family of the same family Leonardo's spilled blood of.



I like it when Leonardo comes to visit. I do not know why I agreed to marry the Bridegroom. I do not love him. I like Leonardo. If he keeps coming to see me, I do not know what I will do. If he keeps trying to see me before my wedding, I will try to stop talking to him. I will probably run away with him if this continues. If I get married to the Bridegroom and then I run away with Leonardo, it will continue a blood feud, but it does not matter. We will be long gone by then.



- Bride

Blood Wedding

Stylistic techniques (imagery, figurative language, sensory detail)

"Blood Wedding" is an interesting play so far. The author, Lorca, uses a lot of interesting conflicts. For example, the conflict between the mother and the Felixes. Since the girl that her son is going to marry was in a previous relationship with a Felix, she is an internal conflict of whether or not to let her son marry the girl. Her son wants to be with her, but the mother doesn't want anything to do with the Felix's. It's also interesting to read the way the mother-in-law and the wife talk. They are talking in metaphors, making it hard to understand. The moter also keeps talking about knives and talks in a very descriptive language. The mother also uses a lot of sensory detail "desperation stings my eyes and the very tips of my hair" (Lorca 7). The bride-to-be is also an interesting case. Lorca has the neighbors and the bridegroom describe the girl as a quiet, nice girl. As soon as they leave, she talks in harsh tones and looks as if she is hiding something. The author uses sensory detail to show this; "(Seizing her by the wrists) Let go!" (Lorca 36). The bride gets really angry all of a sudden and acts as if she is hiding something. The author introduces some mystery in the play by putting this about the bride into the play.

Tracking

I am tracking the image of physical and emotional suffering in the plays.



In "Oedipus the King," there are many images of suffering. Oedipus suffers both emotionally and physically when he learns that the prophecy came true. Jocasta kills herself when she finds out that she married her son and Oedipus gouges out his eyes with the same knowledge. Oedipus gouges out his eyes because of the emotional pain caused by the prophecy. After gouging out his eyes he goes to live alone on the mountains, to live until the end of his days with the knowledge of what he did. He suffers physically from gouging out his eyes. Oedipus also is torn away from his daughters as they are "wrenched" from his hands. This causes him even more emotional suffering because he loved his daughters and was worried about what would happen to them once the city found about him.



In "The Wild Duck," there is a lot more emotional than physical suffering. Gregers suffers emotionally from his relationship with his father. Hjalmar suffers from the knowledge Gregers gives him about Gina and Haakon Werle. He then tries to separate from his family. He distances himself from his daughter, Hedvig. She loved him a lot, and it caused her a lot of pain. This eventually leads her to commit suicide. Hedvig suffered emotionally by her father distancing himself for no explicable reason to her. Hedvig's death causes Hjalmar and Gina both to suffer emotionally from their daughter's death. Gregers was horrified by this turn of events, because he thought she was going to shoot the wild duck. This also leads him to suffer emotionally, but not as much as Hjalmar.

Wild Duck Journal #4

Readers are attracted to moments of intensity in a writer's work. By what means and with what effect have writers in your study offered heightened emotional moments designed to arrest the reader's attention?

In "Oedipus the King," Sophocles includes a lot of heightened emotional moments. He shows Oedipus in a state where he is going insane because of the prophecy. Sophocles also has a scene where it seems as if the prophecy about Oedipus did not come true. This is one of the "heightened emotional moments." "JOCASTA: / Bringing the MESSENGER closer. / Listen to him, see for yourself what all those awful prophecies of god have come to" (Sophocles 1042-1043). This shows how hopeful Jocasta is that the prophecy did not come true. Sophocles uses dramatic irony, because the chorus implies that the prophecy has come true. This causes the reader to be more interested in the play.

In "The Wild Duck," Ibsen invokes a feeling of pity in the reader. In Act 5, Relling tells Gregers that Hedvig kills herself, but to Hjalmar and Gina it looks as if the pistol went off. They let Hjalmar keep on believing this because it would keep him sane. Before Hedvig died, Hjalmar was angry and about to leave his house. After she died, he decided to stay with Gina. Her death brought them together again. This scene attracts the reader's attention more, because it is more dramatic then most of the other scenes.

In both "Oedipus the King" and "The Wild Duck," Sophocles and Ibsen have increased the readers' attention by adding more dramatic scenes to the play.

The Wild Duck Journal #3

Conversations between characters and/or authors

I will be doing a conversation between Hjalmar Ekdal and Gregers Werle that happened but wasn't shown in the book.

Gregers: So Hjalmar, I see that Hedvig is doing fine.
Hjalmar: Yes, she is just great.
Gregers: And Gina, too?
Hjalmar: Yes, it was nice of your father to arrange the marriage for us.
Gregers: It was very interesting. My mother used to tell me stories when Gina worked at our house.
Hjalmar: What kinds of stories?
Gregers: My father used to be really interested in her. My mother also said that she also showed some interest.
Hjalmar: She did? I can't believe Gina would do something like that.
Gregers: I came on this walk to tell you how my father really is. You shouldn't trust him. Calculate you own income. Don't be in his debt anymore.
Hjalmar: I will do that. Thank you for letting me know. My invention. What will become of my invention?
Gregers: You should continue working on your invention.
Hjalmar: I will use the money I make from my invention to get out of your father's debt. I will continue my own life. Let us head back. I must talk to Gina about this. I need to find out why she wove this web of deception and lies around me.
Gregers: I will let you be back on your way then. I will meet you there in a little while.
Hjalmar: Thank you for this information Gregers. I will see you back.

The Wild Duck Journal #2

"What is drama but life with the dull bits cut out?" To what extent do you find this statement applicable in at least two plays you have studied?

I this statement really applicable in both "Oedipus" and "The Wild Duck." In "Oedipus," Sophocles shows just one day of his life. This is the day where he finds out that the horrible prophecy came true. This is just one day of his life that happens to have a lot of importance and drama to it. The play is just Oedipus' life with the drama. Sophocles isn't telling a story of one normal day. He is telling a dramatic day of his life.

In "The Wild Duck," Ibsen is showing "dramatic" days of Hjalmar and Greggers' lives. Ibsen doesn't show Greggers working at the mill or a normal day of Hjalmar. He decided to show the scenes of when Hjalmar first meets Greggers after years apart. He could have just as easily decided to show a normal day on the job. The fact that Ibsen decided to show this, shows that this is the characters' lives with the "dull bits" cut out to make a dramatic play.

In both "Oedipus" and "The Wild Duck," Sophocles and Ibsen have showed the interesting parts of the characters' lives. They have decided against showing the normal every day parts of the characters' lives. Instead they have shown the drama and the dramatic parts of their lives: in "Oedipus" the discovery that the prophecy came true; in "The Wild Duck" the meeting of Hjalmar and Greggers after years and their lives after that.

The Wild Duck Journal #1

"Visual action can be as important on the stage as speech." How far do you agree with this claim? In your answer you should refer to two or three plays you have studied.



I think that visual action is just as important on the stage as speech. Without both, the play would be pretty boring. In Oedipus, there are many scenes where the character would be talking and doing some sort of action. For example, there are a few side notes where it says that the character is doing something or other. "Helping a Priest to his feet" (Sophocles line 9), is one such example. The play goes on with Oedipus talking to this character.

There is also imagery. Throughout the play, there are phrases such as "clinging to your altars" (line 18). If an actor says these lines without acting them out, it seems really weird. If a person says "why are you kneeling?" and the person he/she's talking to is just standing and reciting lines, it doesn't look right. The person should then be kneeling. This shows how visual action is just as important as speech.

Similarly, in The Wild Duck, there are different actions in parentheses right next to the characters names: "Hedvig (making signals). Uh-uh!" (Ibsen 141). Again, the character should be making signals instead of just talking. Just talking would make the play a collection of monologues by characters. Having visual action in the plays makes it more interesting and the actor doesn't just have to stand there, but act out what they are saying.

Doing all the motions while saying the lines makes the play a lot more appealing to the audience. If the actors just stand there talking, then the audience will get bored really fast. Visual action will make the audience more engaged in the play. So, I think that visual action is just as important as speech.

Oedipus Discussion Questions

1. Do you agree with how Oedipus tried to avoid the prophecy? Could he have done something else to avoid the prophecy or should he have just ignored the prophecy? Wouldn't he have just avoided the prophecy altogether if he hadn't married at all or if he decided against killing anybody? How would these decisions have affected Oedipus' life?

2. What evidence can be listed for the motif and image of physical and emotional suffering? How is this motif significant to the play?

Oedipus Journal #4

Narrative structure: How has the plot (not the story) been constructed? Are their parts? Is the plot circular? Subplots? How important/effective is the ending? Has everythying been revealed by the end or are there unanswered questions? Does this matter? What period of time has been covered? Is time important?

The plot is basically that there is a king (Oedipus) who a prophecy has been made about. He has tried to avoid his parents for fear of the prophecy, but the prophecy comes true in the end. There are subplots, as in of figuring out whether or not the prophecy really did apply to Oedipus, or if he had ended up avoiding it.

In the end I still am questioning somethings. For one, what happens to Oedipus? Does he end up dying alone on the mountains or does he just kill himself? Does he ever "see" his children again? These questions might be answered in a different Theban play such "Antigone" or "Oedipus at Colonus."

These questions do not matter specifically to the plot, yet they are about the after story of what happens. I am still curious to know how the citizens feel about Oedipus know. They used to look up to him as their majestic king and used to talk about his feats in the past. Now that they know the truth about him, do they judge him for it?

The whole play takes place over a single day. This time is really important because the way the play is structured, it seems as if the play is longer. Throughout the play, the messengers come and the plot is revealed; the truth about Oedipus is also revealed.

Oepdipus Journal #3

Themes and ideas

In this part of the book, Oedipus realizes that Apollo's prophecy has come true. He finds out that he murdered his father and married his mother. In this part of the book there are a lot of motifs and themes. In this part of the book, Oedipus is also portrayed differently.

Oedipus went from the majestic king in the first part of the play to someone who is not in his right mind: "Oedipus is beside himself. Racked with anguish, no longer a man of sense,..." (1001-1002). Oedipus is tortured by not knowing the end of the prophecy.

Religion is still playing a big part in the play. The characters constantly refer to Apollo and the other Greek gods. The gods have a really big influence over the characters. Oedipus and Jocasta were both afraid of Apollo's prophecy, so they both tried to escape it in different ways. Jocasta tried to kill her son, and Oedipus tried to avoid his parents.

There is also a theme of suffering and illness throughout the book. Jocasta is suffering: "My suffering is enough" (1165). Oedipus also suffers from not knowing about the prophecy. Throughout th ebook, suffering and illness is emphasized. Jocasta also calls him a "man of agony" (1178). This quote again shows suffering.

Oedipus Journal #2

Journal: How does the background information on Greek Theater and History inform your reading of Oedipus? Use specific examples to explore the connections between context and content.

Sophocles introduced 3 actors to Greek theater and a chorus. This knowledge helped me understand Oedipus better. There are always only 3 characters talking at a time. Whenever a fourth character ends up talking, one of the previous characters has always left. The history of the Greek theater and drama helped me understand why there are only 3 characters "on the stage" at the time.

Another interesting piece of history that connected to th eplay was the worship of the Greek gods. At the time, in reality, the people worshipped Dionysus. In the play, the characters refer to the Greek gods such as Apollo: "Zeus and Apollo know, they know, the great masters of all the dark and depth of human life." (lines 561-562). The characters always have deep reverence of the Gods and do not dare to say anything bad about them: "An oracle came to Laius one fine day (I won'tsay from Apollo himself but his underlings his priests) and it declared that doom..." (lines 784-787). Just like in reality, the people would worship Dionysus reverently, and just like in reality not say anything bad about him.

Oedipus Journal #1

Point of View/Characters:

The story had mostly to do with Oedipus. He is a very strong and defiant character. He likes being in control. Even though the story is a play, and is not told from the point of view of anyone, it seems as if it is from the point of view of Oedipus. This is because the story portrays him as very majestic and as the character that everyone admires.

From the introduction of the play we know that everyone knew of this play. The play is made very tragic by the line "the hero of the play is thus his own destroyer," in the introduction. The hero that everyone admires brings about his own downfall, shocking the audience, and bringing more popularity to the play.

Oedipus, like I said before, is portrayed as very majestic. On the first page, the sidenote states that "Oedipus solved the riddle of the Sphinx and ascended the throne of Thebes." This line shows that Oedipus is a very respected character who is now a king of Thebes. Portraying Oedipus likes this, makes the reader and the audience want to sympathize with him even more. This ultimately also cause the play to be even more tragic.