1.what was so scandalous about the death of Father Zossima?
The odor of corruption
2.what is the name of Smerdyakov's Mother?
Stinking Lizaveta
3.what is one of the great lessons of Father Zossima?
Everyone is responsible for everyone else
paradise is here and now
4.who actually murdered Old Man Karamazov?
Smerdyakov
5.how did Smerdyakov actually die?
He hangs himself
6.the courtroom scenes depict...
the indictment of the legal system
7.which character was not discussed as a possible hero of the Brothers Karamazov?
8.The Grand Inquisitor (parable about Christ coming back to earth to give mankind free will, the Inquisitor executes him because people don't want freedon)
9.how is each brother responsible for the death of Fydor Karamazov?
Smerdyakov did the deed, Dmitri wanted to, Alyosha didn't stop it, and Ivan gave ideas
10.what was the evidence used to convict Dmitri?
The letter from Katerina
11.which character in the novel starts as highly critical of Aloysha Karamazov but later becomes his disciple?
Kolya
12.in Anne's presentation to the class, she presented the unusual idea that the true hero of the Brothers Karamazov is?
Ilyusha
13.who did Hamlet think was behind the curtain?
Claudius
14.Who was it, actually?
Polonious
15.who is the one person who can match Hamlet's wit?
The gravedigger
Friday, April 30, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
The Last Blog
I wish that I had an unlimited amount of time to wax eloquent about how much I enjoyed this class, how much I've learned from it, and how much it will impact my life in the future. Sadly, I don't have more than a few minutes to dedicate to the task of bringing this blogging adventure to a close, but I'll try to do the best I can with the time I have.
I guess the best way to do this is to answer the question I didn't answer in my final paper--What do I know now that I didn't know before, and what difference does it make? My answer might be a somewhat odd one, for many of the things we've learned I already knew. That everything is a retelling of something: when I was younger, I stylized myself as Beth Marsh from Little Women, and later as Lynn from Kira-Kira by Cynthia Kadohata. Now I fancy myself more as Meg O'Keefe from A Swiftly Tilting Planet...but that's beside the point. I did learn, however, that by finding what I'm a retelling of, I can avoid making the same mistakes as my predecessor.
That fantasy was more real than non-fiction I knew as well. In fact, the idea was an integral part of my life. However, in this I have learned that I am not alone, as I once thought, that this is not something that you have to grow out of, and that loving the story more than real life is not bad, as I was told. Perhaps it is ironic, but knowing this has freed me to life a life outside of the story, for now I know that I can return to it at any time that I want, unlike the Pevensie children, who were eventually told that they could not return to Narnia...
I also learned the importance of the phrase how do I know what I think until I see what I say? We can hold all sorts of opinions, and know all sorts of facts, but until we see what we actually find important enough to talk about, we really can't know what we think. A lot of the time it's easier to compose your thoughts, to see what you say, in the context of the written word rather than the spoken. I've always been a literary person. My writing voice is far more eloquent than my speaking voice (I believe my presentation was a great illustration of that). Oftentimes I find it's a lot easier to figure out what I want to say, what I think, if I write it first.
Anyways, those are some of the more significant things that I've learned. This class has been a great adventure, and I'll carry what I've learned for the rest of my life. My time is running short now, so I'd like to close with a quote from Winston Churchill.
"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
I guess the best way to do this is to answer the question I didn't answer in my final paper--What do I know now that I didn't know before, and what difference does it make? My answer might be a somewhat odd one, for many of the things we've learned I already knew. That everything is a retelling of something: when I was younger, I stylized myself as Beth Marsh from Little Women, and later as Lynn from Kira-Kira by Cynthia Kadohata. Now I fancy myself more as Meg O'Keefe from A Swiftly Tilting Planet...but that's beside the point. I did learn, however, that by finding what I'm a retelling of, I can avoid making the same mistakes as my predecessor.
That fantasy was more real than non-fiction I knew as well. In fact, the idea was an integral part of my life. However, in this I have learned that I am not alone, as I once thought, that this is not something that you have to grow out of, and that loving the story more than real life is not bad, as I was told. Perhaps it is ironic, but knowing this has freed me to life a life outside of the story, for now I know that I can return to it at any time that I want, unlike the Pevensie children, who were eventually told that they could not return to Narnia...
I also learned the importance of the phrase how do I know what I think until I see what I say? We can hold all sorts of opinions, and know all sorts of facts, but until we see what we actually find important enough to talk about, we really can't know what we think. A lot of the time it's easier to compose your thoughts, to see what you say, in the context of the written word rather than the spoken. I've always been a literary person. My writing voice is far more eloquent than my speaking voice (I believe my presentation was a great illustration of that). Oftentimes I find it's a lot easier to figure out what I want to say, what I think, if I write it first.
Anyways, those are some of the more significant things that I've learned. This class has been a great adventure, and I'll carry what I've learned for the rest of my life. My time is running short now, so I'd like to close with a quote from Winston Churchill.
"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
Monday, April 26, 2010
Paper - Of Heroes
In any story, the hero plays an essential role—in fact, there would be no story without him. His actions, good or bad, are what fuel the plot and keep the rest of the characters alive. Sometimes the hero is obvious from the beginning of the book. Other times you find him halfway through. Occasionally you finish the book with no clear idea of who the hero actually was. Such is the case in the Brothers Karamazov, and this point was illustrated in many of our discussions in class. The actual (or intended) hero in the Brothers Karamazov is a point of great controversy, and brings about a question on the nature of the hero. Is it the author's job to tell the reader who the hero is, or is it the reader's job to discover the protagonist for themselves? Some would argue, as Dostoevsky did, that the likeable, noble-minded Aloysha is the hero of this great piece of literature, while others might argue that Dmitri, the man of action, deserves the starring role. However, in the course of this paper it will be proven that the actual hero of the Brothers Karamazov is the tragic figure of the boy Ilyusha.
A tragic hero, in one sense, is one who makes such an error in their actions, be it through maliciousness or trickery, that causes his suffering or downfall. Most tragic heroes, however, are noble people, and it is only through some mistake in judgment that his ruination is brought about. This idea is beautifully illustrated by Ilyusha's feeding the pin to the dog Zuchka. Though the act was performed out of spite, it was not for hatred of the poor creature, but rather as a form of rebellion against the boy Kolya, unofficial leader of the schoolboys. Ilyusha wanted to prove that he was capable of doing something without Kolya's permission, in effect, that he was able to act on his own. He knew that he had done wrong as soon as he heard Zuchka's pained yelping, and was afraid that he had killed the poor undeserving creature, but at that point the act had been done and there was nothing that could be changed about it. Grief consumed Ilyusha and made him ill. In fact, one may think that his sorrow over his actions may have been what ultimately caused his death in the end of the book. However, this is another point of debate, for a reconciliation was made through the boy Kolya, and the dog returned unharmed. Ilyusha saw that no damage had been done by his actions, yet his condition did not improve, and that is the real reason that he is the tragic hero of this book.
Although there are several deaths in the Brothers Karamazov, only one is a true tragedy. The death of Father Zossima, though sorrowful, and a source of great pain especially for Alyosha, was not a tragedy. Zossima had lived a long, full life and had experienced everything that he was meant to see. Neither was the death of Fydor Karamazov a tragedy, for he too was getting on in years. In fact, some might say that he had already lived too long. However, Ilyusha's death can be considered a true tragedy, and a tragedy in the deepest sense of the word, for he had not experienced enough of life to be ready to leave it behind yet. This is part of a most vital doctrine on the nature of mortality—that death is tragedy only when it comes too soon. Although Father Zossima be dearly mourned, or Old Man Karamazov damned to hell, it is Ilyusha's death that should stir up indignation, that should cause the reader to ask how this could have happened. Ilyusha was only a child. He was not supposed to die. This is not right at all. Of all the characters in the book, Ilyusha was the one who most “deserved” to live, for he had seen so little of life.
The death and suffering of children is a major topic in the Brothers Karamazov. It consumes a great deal of the conversation between Ivan and Aloysha, and leads to one of the deepest questions posed in the book. “Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature -- that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance -- and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions?” This idea is displayed in the suffering, and eventual death, of young Ilyusha, though his death was not in any way justified by his actions. In fact, Ilyusha's role in the Brothers Karamazov was illustrative of the death of Dostoevsky's own son, Aloysha, after whom he named his beloved protagonist. Neither boy's death was directly caused by his own actions, but was tragic in that it was unjustified and came before its time. If Dmitri Karamazov can be forgiven for trying to kill his own father, it is an unstated fact that a small boy should be forgiven for injuring a dog, especially when he did not even know that the poor creature would be hurt so. The phrase “I did not mean to hurt him,” all-too-common in an overenthusiastic young boy's rhetoric, nevertheless rings true in this situation.
However, whether you believe that he was in the wrong or not, Ilyusha's suffering is unjustified merely because he is just a boy. The death of a child, Alexy Karamazov would argue, is far too much of a horror to ever be considered right, for each life is precious and full of love. Ivan might argue that the child might grow up someday to be a horrible, wicked person, but there is no way to know whether that is true or not, and therefore the child's suffering is still not justified. The cutting short of any young life is tragedy, much more so when he feels that his suffering is a punishment for his sins. This is an illustration of the tragic sense of life—sarvam dukkham, sarvam anityam—the idea that life is full of pain and suffering, justified or unjustified, and lasts only for a moment. Whether it be fair or not, children will suffer and die and there is no way to stop it. To die before one's time is what it truly means to be a tragic figure, and this is why Ilyusha Snegiryov is the true hero of the Brothers Karamazov.
A tragic hero, in one sense, is one who makes such an error in their actions, be it through maliciousness or trickery, that causes his suffering or downfall. Most tragic heroes, however, are noble people, and it is only through some mistake in judgment that his ruination is brought about. This idea is beautifully illustrated by Ilyusha's feeding the pin to the dog Zuchka. Though the act was performed out of spite, it was not for hatred of the poor creature, but rather as a form of rebellion against the boy Kolya, unofficial leader of the schoolboys. Ilyusha wanted to prove that he was capable of doing something without Kolya's permission, in effect, that he was able to act on his own. He knew that he had done wrong as soon as he heard Zuchka's pained yelping, and was afraid that he had killed the poor undeserving creature, but at that point the act had been done and there was nothing that could be changed about it. Grief consumed Ilyusha and made him ill. In fact, one may think that his sorrow over his actions may have been what ultimately caused his death in the end of the book. However, this is another point of debate, for a reconciliation was made through the boy Kolya, and the dog returned unharmed. Ilyusha saw that no damage had been done by his actions, yet his condition did not improve, and that is the real reason that he is the tragic hero of this book.
Although there are several deaths in the Brothers Karamazov, only one is a true tragedy. The death of Father Zossima, though sorrowful, and a source of great pain especially for Alyosha, was not a tragedy. Zossima had lived a long, full life and had experienced everything that he was meant to see. Neither was the death of Fydor Karamazov a tragedy, for he too was getting on in years. In fact, some might say that he had already lived too long. However, Ilyusha's death can be considered a true tragedy, and a tragedy in the deepest sense of the word, for he had not experienced enough of life to be ready to leave it behind yet. This is part of a most vital doctrine on the nature of mortality—that death is tragedy only when it comes too soon. Although Father Zossima be dearly mourned, or Old Man Karamazov damned to hell, it is Ilyusha's death that should stir up indignation, that should cause the reader to ask how this could have happened. Ilyusha was only a child. He was not supposed to die. This is not right at all. Of all the characters in the book, Ilyusha was the one who most “deserved” to live, for he had seen so little of life.
The death and suffering of children is a major topic in the Brothers Karamazov. It consumes a great deal of the conversation between Ivan and Aloysha, and leads to one of the deepest questions posed in the book. “Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature -- that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance -- and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions?” This idea is displayed in the suffering, and eventual death, of young Ilyusha, though his death was not in any way justified by his actions. In fact, Ilyusha's role in the Brothers Karamazov was illustrative of the death of Dostoevsky's own son, Aloysha, after whom he named his beloved protagonist. Neither boy's death was directly caused by his own actions, but was tragic in that it was unjustified and came before its time. If Dmitri Karamazov can be forgiven for trying to kill his own father, it is an unstated fact that a small boy should be forgiven for injuring a dog, especially when he did not even know that the poor creature would be hurt so. The phrase “I did not mean to hurt him,” all-too-common in an overenthusiastic young boy's rhetoric, nevertheless rings true in this situation.
However, whether you believe that he was in the wrong or not, Ilyusha's suffering is unjustified merely because he is just a boy. The death of a child, Alexy Karamazov would argue, is far too much of a horror to ever be considered right, for each life is precious and full of love. Ivan might argue that the child might grow up someday to be a horrible, wicked person, but there is no way to know whether that is true or not, and therefore the child's suffering is still not justified. The cutting short of any young life is tragedy, much more so when he feels that his suffering is a punishment for his sins. This is an illustration of the tragic sense of life—sarvam dukkham, sarvam anityam—the idea that life is full of pain and suffering, justified or unjustified, and lasts only for a moment. Whether it be fair or not, children will suffer and die and there is no way to stop it. To die before one's time is what it truly means to be a tragic figure, and this is why Ilyusha Snegiryov is the true hero of the Brothers Karamazov.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
No Boring Books?
I know that nobody really wants to hear what I have to say, but I had some thoughts about Team One's presentation on Monday, so I thought I would at least write them up so anyone who's feeling bored can know what I have to say. For anyone who somehow managed to miss class, Group One presented a debate about the argument that there is no such thing as a boring book, only a boring person. The argument was thrown somewhat off-track and never reached a conclusion. However, I beg to argue that a conclusion could not be reached. Is there such a thing as a boring book? I do not know about the word “boring,” but there are some pieces of literature—though I am loath to call them that—that provide very little insight upon the reading of them. I agree that all books have benefit for certain people at certain places in life, but the idea that any book can be interesting to any person as long as you come at it with the right mindset is a very slippery idea. There are some stories that some people cannot understand. Perhaps it is a mindset that they cannot bring themselves to take on, or a concept that they cannot grasp. Just as some people have a very difficult time understanding math, or science, some books are quite literally impossible for them to read. However, there are others who could digest the book quite easily. In putting the comparison in terms of food, it resembles someone with a food allergy or intolerance. Just as there are some people who cannot eat wheat, protein, or dairy products, some people cannot read and understand certain stories. Indeed, one might actually say that it could make them physically ill. Perhaps this comparison was a little bit out there, but I thought it was at least worth thinking about. Since the argument was never really resolved, I threw my own two cents into the lottery.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Thesis Statement
So, after doing a bit of thinking about my thesis, I came up with a couple ideas and, feeling somewhat clever with myself, decided to combine them into a single, cohesive whole:
The feelings of impermanence that the characters in the Brothers Karamazov experience have a profound impact on their dealings with love and romance.
I think that this will not only be an interesting topic to write on, but also a unique challenge as well. Oh yes, and I am reading Hamlet, though I haven't finished it yet as I was feeling sick all yesterday and spent a good deal of time sleeping. Within the next couple days I'll have it done. So far I've liked what I've read, and I expect the good things to continue.
The feelings of impermanence that the characters in the Brothers Karamazov experience have a profound impact on their dealings with love and romance.
I think that this will not only be an interesting topic to write on, but also a unique challenge as well. Oh yes, and I am reading Hamlet, though I haven't finished it yet as I was feeling sick all yesterday and spent a good deal of time sleeping. Within the next couple days I'll have it done. So far I've liked what I've read, and I expect the good things to continue.
Notice!
There will be NO GROUP PROJECTS on Wednesday. Groups 2 and 3 will present on Friday, 1 and 4 on Monday, and 5 and 6 on Wednesday the 21st. Individual presentations will begin on the 23rd and run through the 28th. Check your emails to see what day you'll be presenting individually—we will be running in reverse alphabetical order. If you aren't on the individual presentations list, make sure to let the professor know so he can slip you in there somewhere.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Test Two Notes
1. What is father Zossima's response to Ivan Karamazov's condemnation of God?
2. All of the following are positive except...
The devouring mother
3. What does “thchonic” mean?
Having to do with the underworld
4. What in TOWWAFO makes the utopic possible?
The torture of a small child
5. In a world in which the firemen burn books rather than put out fires, what do people have to do to preserve them?
Memorize them
6. What is the most common argument between a man and a woman?
You don't know what it's like to be me
7. What does Hera do to Tiresias?
Strikes him blind
8. What is the first principle of Buddhism?
All is suffering, all is fleeting
9. What kind of pet would Garrett not cry over when it died?
A fish
10. Does Anton Chechov condemn these people for their elicit love?
No
11. The answer to the Red Wheelbarrow question is the Red Wheelbarrow.
12. If Fydor Karamazov had to belong to an archtype, which one would he be?
The Trickster
13. Which archetype does Gruschenka belong to?
The Temptress
14. What macabre occupation does Annabelle have?
Suicide Cleanup
15. What is the man drawing in the short story where he puts his hand on top of the blind man's?
Cathedral
16. What kind of law does Antigone represent?
The law of the underworld, thchonic law
17. Professor Sexson has a learned colleague whose flaw is that he does not _____.
Read
18. What poem lit up the instructor's face like a kid on Christmas morning?
Before You Leave The Classroom
19. What is the difference between a metaphor and a simile?
A simile uses like or as, a metaphor is a direct comparison.
20. What is Theodicy?
An attempt to justify a god who permits the suffering of the world.
21. Who in the cathedral is the only one who has a name?
The blind man
22. How did Antigone die?
She hanged herself
23. What was the object in TLWTPD that had significant impact on Dmitri?
Sturgeon
24. Who is the tragic hero in Antigone?
25. What is the Grand Inquisitor's secret?
The church has corrected the problems that Jesus brought to the world (freedom)
Miracle, mystery, authority
26. Cliffsnotes are inadequate
27. What does misogynist mean?
Woman-hater (used in reference to Creon, other fields to plow)
28. Shakespearean vs. Italian sonnet
29. In Araby, who was it who inspired the boy to go to the carnival?
Mangan's sister
30. Who in the Brothers K seems to run away from the author?
All of them
31. In Antigone, what character represents the gods of the upperworld?
Creon
32. Sonnet Therapy
33. Creon and Antigone are foils to each other—a foil is a contrast to the main character.
2. All of the following are positive except...
The devouring mother
3. What does “thchonic” mean?
Having to do with the underworld
4. What in TOWWAFO makes the utopic possible?
The torture of a small child
5. In a world in which the firemen burn books rather than put out fires, what do people have to do to preserve them?
Memorize them
6. What is the most common argument between a man and a woman?
You don't know what it's like to be me
7. What does Hera do to Tiresias?
Strikes him blind
8. What is the first principle of Buddhism?
All is suffering, all is fleeting
9. What kind of pet would Garrett not cry over when it died?
A fish
10. Does Anton Chechov condemn these people for their elicit love?
No
11. The answer to the Red Wheelbarrow question is the Red Wheelbarrow.
12. If Fydor Karamazov had to belong to an archtype, which one would he be?
The Trickster
13. Which archetype does Gruschenka belong to?
The Temptress
14. What macabre occupation does Annabelle have?
Suicide Cleanup
15. What is the man drawing in the short story where he puts his hand on top of the blind man's?
Cathedral
16. What kind of law does Antigone represent?
The law of the underworld, thchonic law
17. Professor Sexson has a learned colleague whose flaw is that he does not _____.
Read
18. What poem lit up the instructor's face like a kid on Christmas morning?
Before You Leave The Classroom
19. What is the difference between a metaphor and a simile?
A simile uses like or as, a metaphor is a direct comparison.
20. What is Theodicy?
An attempt to justify a god who permits the suffering of the world.
21. Who in the cathedral is the only one who has a name?
The blind man
22. How did Antigone die?
She hanged herself
23. What was the object in TLWTPD that had significant impact on Dmitri?
Sturgeon
24. Who is the tragic hero in Antigone?
25. What is the Grand Inquisitor's secret?
The church has corrected the problems that Jesus brought to the world (freedom)
Miracle, mystery, authority
26. Cliffsnotes are inadequate
27. What does misogynist mean?
Woman-hater (used in reference to Creon, other fields to plow)
28. Shakespearean vs. Italian sonnet
29. In Araby, who was it who inspired the boy to go to the carnival?
Mangan's sister
30. Who in the Brothers K seems to run away from the author?
All of them
31. In Antigone, what character represents the gods of the upperworld?
Creon
32. Sonnet Therapy
33. Creon and Antigone are foils to each other—a foil is a contrast to the main character.
Monday, April 5, 2010
"It's all your fault!"
Oh dear. I have plenty of chances to overhear a man and a woman arguing. There is a guy who lives down the hall, and he and his on-again-off-again girlfriend fight all the time. In fact, occasionally I can hear them shouting without even having to step out of the room. Most of the time they scream (well, the girl screams and the guy yells) about something the other one has done wrong, or call each other names—I won't repeat them here—for reasons that I don't entirely understand. They also have a tendency to blame each other for things that aren't their fault. I have no idea how those two can spend so much time together when they fight so much, but maybe it's something that I won't ever understand. I'm the kind of person who goes out of her way to avoid conflict, so the idea of constantly bickering with someone isn't appealing at all. But perhaps it's not worth it to try to avoid fights—conflict is inevitable anyways, isn't it? There will always be someone fighting someone else, whether it's for a just cause or not. Anyways, those were my thoughts on the matter. I shall try to write more later, but right now I've got to consume some food before class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)