NRJ #2: Void/Hollowness

In Heart of Darkness, Conrad uses motif to show the different sides of darkness.

In one showing of darkness, Conrad uses the word showing the darkness of the heart, being alone: "We live, as we dream---alone. . . ." (27). There are many different kinds of gloom and sadness, and this thought is one of being isolated from the world. Every person is alone, even when there are people by our sides, we are still, ultimately alone. This thought comes from the darkest place within the heart. It is sad and depressing. It is one kind of darkness that can eat away at the heart.

In another showing of darkness, Conrad describes the sea. He says, "The air was dark above Gravesend, and farther back still seemed condensed into a mournful gloom brooding motionless over the biggest, and the greatest, town on earth" (3). In this passage, Conrad focuses on the darkness of the scenery. This darkness still emits the same feeling of depression and sadness, yet it is a different sort of darkness than the one of the heart. The darkness portrayed here does eventually find its way through and pierce the heart, but it also can be defined as something beautiful in the way that it is just a scene.

NRJ #1: Power/Control

In the novel Heart of Darkness, Conrad uses irony to warn of battling over material things. When Marlow first begins his journey, he meets a man named Fresleven, who was known to be a very gentle and calm tempered man. Later, Marlow hears that Fresleven was killed over a quarrel about two hens. Fresleven lost his life because of a misunderstanding having to do with only two hens. If Fresleven had known before he got to the natives that he would lose his life over something as simple as hens, it would be quite obvious to him what is more important. The hens? Or his life? Caught in the heat of the moment, Fresleven unwittingly chose the hens over his life. Irony is used especially well in these sort of situations because it shows just how silly some conflicts are. And in the end of this particular story the narrator says, "What became of the hens I don't know either. I should think the cause of progress got them, anyhow" (Conrad 9). Nobody won anything over this silly dispute, and the hens were assumed to have remained untouched by both sides.

In the same scene, Conrad uses character to show the foolishness of battling over material objects. The natives killed Fresleven. Being superstitious about killing a man in their village, the natives abandoned their home. It is silly to think one man lost his life, and many others lost his or her home over a pair of hens. Yet, it reflects the ways of man. "Mad terror had scattered them, men, woman, children, through the bush and they had never returned" (Conrad 9). Stubborn in the moment, and then perhaps regretful later, if the natives had known beforehand what these two hens would cause, the bet would be that they'd give away the hens for free with no problem. However, that is not how it played out. And man must learn from mistakes made.

DRJ #3: Hamlet, Act IV and V

Reading through the ending of Hamlet was a pretty intense experience. It seems all the action that Hamlet had been building up to finally exploded in one very incredible scene. I thought it was sad that nearly everyone had to die in some horrible way. I'm the sort of person who would definitely not mind if the main characters lived at the end. But I thought each of the deaths were not just random and uneeded, I thought they all worked great for the play.

Gertrude's betrayal to Hamlet in Act IV was terribly sad to me. Claudius has not even been her husband for too long, and her dedication should have remained with her son. It was sad to me how Hamlet went to his mother seeking help from her, confiding in her, and she deceived him, saying she would help him. Although Hamlet went about talking to his mother in a mad sort of way, which I could imagine would be frightening for Gertrude, I do think that she should have still stayed loyal to her son, even if he was insane. Her betrayal saddened me greatly. Because she sided with Claudius, I almost saw her as the villian, as well. In the end, when she cried out for Hamlet as she died, it made me a little annoyed that she still went to Hamlet even though she tricked him when he needed her.

In this section of the play, Shakespeare used with great execution, suspense to intensify the climax of the story. The entire scene was filled with suspense. As I read through it, my eyes zipped through the words in the excitement that Shakespeare created. Although nearly all the words that were part of this scene were intense, in the very last scene and act, right before Hamlet killed Claudius, Laertes said, "the foul practise Hath turn'd itself on me lo, here I lie, Never to rise again: thy mother's poison'd: I can no more: the king, the king's to blame".

As Laertes said that I could only imagine the rage that Hamlet was feeling, that fueled his actions for the final kill.

I was wondering if anyone else thought the last scene didn't quite fulfill their expectations of this great classic. Did you want a different ending?

DRJ #2: Hamlet, Act II and III

I had been growing more eager as I read through these two acts. Now that the play has gotten past the introductions, it has advanced to more suspense and even more drama. Hamlet's character, along with Claudius' character, has developed greatly. I felt very bad for Hamlet and all of the changes that he has been going through. His father being killed, his mother being remarried to the killer, and then Ophelia rejecting him because of her father, is all incredibly sad.

Claudius' character was dwelved into more deeply in this act. Hamlet devised a plan using a play to see if Claudius was truly his father's killer, and it turned out to be so. Claudius was then confirmed as the killer, which led Hamlet to further his plan to kill. Despite Claudius being confirmed as the killer, he is not just a simple bad man. Hatred does not fill his entire heart. The love that he has for Gertrude, although it makes Hamlet greatly unhappy, seems to be a geniune love. The complexity that this shows for the entire play is quite interesting.

Through use of Claudius' character, I think Shakespeare was able to say that the world is not made of black and white. While Claudius committed the ultimate sin, murder, his soul is not just made of black. By his love for Gertrude, it can be seen that Claudius still does care for others. His love proves to the audience that he is not pure evil, even though he is clearly the main antagonist of the play. By seeing that the darkest of men can still have some light within themselves, it can be known that even the darkest of times can hold within them some light.

I was wondering if anyone else agreed that Claudius did have a part of him that was soft and gentle, or if he was the ultimate, purely bad villian.

DRJ #1: Hamlet, Act 1

My initial reaction to this story was one of fright. I’ve read other Shakespeare plays before and didn’t have too many problems, but back then I also was able to concentrate a bit more. Reading through Hamlet is difficult and quite the task. His style of writing, however, is beautiful. I still do have problems picking up on tone, though. I get confused very often. I have never read Hamlet before, and going into it I knew absolutely nothing about it besides the fact that Shakespeare had written it.

Reading through Act I first, I saw Horatio as a sneaky, suspicious sort of character. I suppose I might have misread when the first night guard, Francisco, called Horatio a “rival” to his watch. I’m not entirely sure what that means, I figured it meant that Horatio was a rival of the King, and when he said that he was friends of the ground, I did not trust him. However, I read through some study guides online and found that most of the study guides spoke of Horatio as a good, reliable, loyal friend of Hamlet. I was confused as I read this, but now, looking back and Horatio’s character, I suppose I can see, assuming Horatio was telling the truth, how he would be a loyal character.

As for the theme, I believe that, through diction, Shakespeare might have been trying to say that it is difficult to trust others. For me, seeing how easily that I mistook Horatio as an enemy, it’s also equally as easy to see Horatio as a friend of Hamlet’s. I have not exactly read too much Shakespeare, so I am not entirely sure if this is his style, but perhaps he made the characters seem suspicious in order to cause a sense of mystery. I could just as easily see Horatio tricking Hamlet into doing something terrible as I could see him trying to save Hamlet’s life. This sense of mystery really does make this story interesting.

I was wondering if anyone else agreed with me about the mystery, and if you think Shakespeare purposefully made the characters seem suspicious - or is it just me? I am quite confused while reading this, so I might be completely off. If so, I’d love to hear other people’s thoughts.

SSRJ #5: Walker

My initial reaction of this short story was one of hesitance. Whenever I begin a new novel or short story, It always takes awhile for me to adapt to the style of writing and characters, not to mention the plot itself. But towards the end of this novel, I wanted to cry. Not out of sadness or hatred, but out of happiness.

In this short story, Walker used a style unique to her own heritage to portray a deep and emotional sense of family. The two opposing characters in this short story were sisters Maggie and Dee. Their relationship was especially interesting to watch play out because Dee has a personality very much like my own sister. Very demanding, and only thinking of her own self, it was frustrating to see how she acted, and it is a wonder how she could act so rudely without feeling guilty or unjust. She wanted more than she had, and didn’t appreciate the smaller, better things in life. She wanted it all. Maggie’s personality seemed to be the very opposite. She appreciated her home, and her relationship with her mother and grandmothers. She was thankful for the smaller things in life and was not materialistic. When Dee came to their home, rejecting her own birth name that was given to her, and stripping Maggie and her mother’s home of their possessions just because she wanted them, Maggie was still not angry at her sister. She even was going to allow Dee to take the blankets that her mother had promised to Maggie. I respect Maggie in the way that she remained true to herself, and didn’t allow Dee’s selfishness and rotten attitude effect her. I was very proud of the mother for stepping up for Maggie and taking the blankets from Dee. That part warmed my heart. Being true to those who treat you like family is really what makes true happiness. The style was able to contribute to this happiness in the way that it helped keep even the story true to its own heritage. Immediately, the style draws the reader into the mother and Maggie’s side. Although the mother did not hate Dee, and still treated her much more nicely than I think I would ever be able to treat someone who was so selfish, she still remained loyal to those who stayed by her side loyally.

Overall, this story left me with a happy feeling, even though I didn’t know what to expect in the beginning. It was interesting to see how the story played out, and how the characters interacted. I was wondering if anyone felt that the mother was wrong to take the blankets away from Dee like that, since she was the mother, and should remain unbiased, or if you think she did the right thing?

SSRJ #4: Updike

My initial reaction to this short story was the simple thought, “What is the purpose to this story?” An entire story focusing on these three girls who come into a store dressed indecently seemed a little silly to me. I definitely had to think a little bit more to understand the point to it. Although it was difficult to find a point at first, the writing was very descriptive and interesting, so it held my attention. I couldn’t help but think though, as I was one page away from being finished, why the author decided to write this story.

As I got around to thinking about this story though, I realized how much the narrator and some of his fellow workers were charmed by these three girls, and realized just how much of an effect that charm had on these men. I think that Updike used imagery to fabricate this charm that had such an effect on the workers. Updike, through the narrator, spent quite a deal of time describing in great detail how these girls looked in their bathing suits. The narrator was greatly infatuated with “Queenie.” Not because of how she was internally, but how she looked. I think what Updike was trying to portray through this short story was the idea that you should not be fooled by something beautiful. The narrator stupidly quits his job simply because the manager told the girls to dress decently next time they come into their store. The narrator did this in hopes that the girls would look to him as their hero, but they walk right on out of the store without even paying any attention to him. The narrator received nothing from quitting. Not any recognition from those he was trying to defend, nor the pay that he was working for. The girls enchanted the narrator and stripped him of what he had. The great detail that was used in describing the girls helped the reader understand why the narrator chose to foolishly quit, and yet it is easy to see how he would soon regret this choice.

I was wondering if anyone else besides the narrator felt the enchantment that these girls radiated. The author used great detail in an attempt to help the reader see just what the narrator saw, and understand the narrator’s actions. Do you think he did a good job with this?

SSRJ #3: Steinbeck

I didn’t feel anything in particular when I began to read this short story. I have read literature by Steinbeck before, and can never seem to get excited about his work. However, I found Elisa’s affection and love for these chrysanthemums a bit more heart warming than I had originally anticipated.

I believe that Steinbeck’s use of character really helped to make his story interesting and light. Elisa is a strong woman - even her husband knows it. She lives in a time where women are supposed to lay low and care for their husbands, but are never equal to a male. But in the opening of the short story, it is shown that Elisa does not follow this general rule of the doormat wife. She wears hats for men, and works eagerly and enthusiastically on the plants outside. Her facial expressions are always tight and hard, like that of a mans’; not to be expected of a woman.

The only thing that seems to soften her personality are the chrysanthemums. She has what she and her husband call “planting hands.” This ability of hers has helped her find love within these beautiful plants. She connects with them, and they respond to her. When the traveler comes by to sell his work for some dinner, she refuses his offer to sharpen any tools around the house. She insists that she does not need this. But as the traveler mentions these chrysanthemums, her heart begins to melt. The traveler manipulates her, preying on her love for flowers to get what he wants. And in the end, he does get what he wants. Elisa is excited to have shared her love of chrysanthemums with someone else in the world.

However, when she sees a spot on the ground down the dirt path, she knows that she had been tricked. I do not think that it was the fact that she was tricked that hurt her, but the fact that she had shown a weakness, even though she had defined herself as not just an ordinary woman. This man had tricked her, and she had ended up buying a service that she had strongly refused beforehand.

I think that Steinbeck wrote this story to tell of the strength of this one woman. She prided herself in being strong, and not succumbing to the everyday housewife image. And although her love for these chrysanthemums should not be seen as a weakness, but rather as something she enjoys and love, it is still used as a weakness, and to Elisa, that is the most painful thing to experience - being weak.

I think that Steinbeck was also able to show that it was Elisa’s strength that destroyed her. If Elisa had not been so proud, and strong, then something so simple as giving someone a plant that they discarded might not have hurt her quite as much. This strength of hers makes her weaker than the average housewife that she strives to overshoot. I’m wondering if anyone else agrees that her strength happened to be her downfall?

SSRJ #2: Bloom

This story has a very creepy tone to it. The first paragraph alone was scary and dark. While the creepy tone suggested a dark tale ahead, the words used to describe and support this tone created a sort of elegant beauty within death.

I was surprised by this short story, having just read "A True War Story". This short story was so different. I think what created this difference was Bloom's use of imagery. O'Brien's usage of imagery was to support a grotesque and gory situation. Bloom's imagery was sharper, though, and more close to home. Not everyone will see the remains of their friend stuck in a tree. Everyone, though, must experience death. The stages of death that were described are something that happens to every living thing. That in itself is very frightening.

I think the author's reason for writing this story was to intrigue and thrill, but I also see it as a warning to be wary of how you treat someone. The man who killed Anne and her boyfriend, among others, seemed to have been treated wrongly from the beginning of his years. The way that his father would make him stay outside naked during the night if he so much as peed the bed is a terrible thing to imagine. The unjustice that this boy felt as a child due to his father seems to have transfered into his older years, where he goes as far as killing. The way that he was raised was not his fault, but others besides himself must still suffer because of it.

I also think that the author wrote this as a warning to those who might be too trusting. Anne, who was talkative and attracted Eugene this way, might have been able to avoid this situation. It is sad to think that her mom wanted her to be a ballerina, and if Anne had taken to such an activity, then she might have lived past this.

This also leads to the topic of choices. This story spoke a lot about what happens to the body after it dies. It attracts flies because of the smell released once dead; this smell is inevitable and cannot be changed. What can be changed, however, is the course of ones' life. It is interesting to think that if Anne had perhaps taken a different course in Debate, or had found that she loved dancing more, or enjoyed music more, then her life could have been spared. Perhaps another innocent person's life would be taken in her place, falling prey to Eugene's evil. The evil that was created because of his father.

This world is a cycle. People and animals and events are all connected. One step by one person might change the lives of thousands of others. One decision to stay home might also have the same effect. It is astounding to think of something so complex, and yet so simple.

I'm wondering if Anne's choice to go into Debate rather than something else, such as dancing, had an effect on anyones mind as it did for me. I find it so astounding, yet so frightful, that one simple choice can have such an effect on many people's lives.

SSRJ #1: O'Brien

To be honest, “How to Tell a True War Story”, by Tim O’Brien, made me nervous as I read through it. Although the words and tone of the narrator were calm enough, there seemed to be a hidden will within the short story. The narrator seemed to be internally frustrated, trying to make the reader understand him. Toward the end, his voice was so earnest and he was trying with so much effort for the audience to see what he was saying that I did not want to misread and understand him wrongly. I wanted to be able to see every little thought that he was thinking, and every word he was saying just as he was trying to tell it. I did not want to step out of the story’s path, because the narrator’s voice seemed so tired.

What caught my attention most in “How to Tell a True War Story” was the use of motif. O’Brien repeatedly wrote about truth, such as when the narrator would say, “This is true”, and when Sanders said, “God’s truth”, including, most importantly, the words sprinkled throughout the short story, and seen in the title, words of “a true war story.” In the beginning of the short story, the narrator spoke about the truth of the war in a definitive way. The truth of the occurrences that he spoke of wasvfinal. It was pure and it was certain. There was no questioning that what the narrator said was the absolute truth. As the short story progressed, though, the narrator’s “truth” began to become slightly muddled. What I gathered was that “truth” is really just how people want stories to end. Heroism and bravery unrewarded is not what the population wants to hear. The population wants glory for those who deserve it. When noble soldiers die for a cause close to their heart, but disappear without rewards, then the population doesn’t want to bear such sadness within their hearts. The population that remains untainted directly by war does not understand how cruel, unnatural, harsh and surreal that killing and the fear of being killed can cause. Even with the basic understanding that one untainted by the war does not understand , I believe that the narrator is trying to say that there is still not an understanding between the listener and the speaker. One must experience the unnaturalness of war to understand, because simply hearing will never equal experiencing.

I think that the author uses beauty to support his idea of a true war story. I do not think that the narrator is advertising the war when he says that there is a certain beauty to it. I think part of the reason why the narrator’s “truth” began to deteriorate into something less definitive was because there are different sides of war. I think what was trying to be said was that even something deadly can be beautiful. And that is what makes his black and white truth something entirely grey.

For making the “truth” change over time, I think that O’Brien’s use of motif was the perfect decision. The word remained constant, while the meaning changed. It very much reflects how war seems to have effected the narrator’s mind. Something once so solid and calm, transforming into something else. The human mind adapts to make each situation a livable place. The beauty that the narrator saw in the war I believe could have been his mind scoping out, through the terror, the differences between the world of the war, and the world of the average person.

I noticed in this war story, “a true war story”, that the manner in which the narrator spoke was calm and subdued. His voice was that of an average person, just living from one day to another. One might not even guess the horrors that he has seen; the picking up of Lemon’s body parts, for instance. I think that the reason for this was to support O’Brien’s theme of “a true war story.” In other war stories that I have read, the voices of the narrators are typically more filled with pain and hardship. One would immediately guess that the narrator has seen indescribable horrors. I was wondering if the reason for this calm voice was to support the idea that a true war story is different from what is generally believed, or perhaps because the narrator’s thoughts were simply different from the average soldier? Does the author’s use of motif really need the backup of a calm voice, or are the motif and voice simply unrelated?