Othello or is it Iago?

     Othello is a play about deception and jealousy.  Our main character is tricked into believing that his new wife, Desdemona, is secretly seeing another man behind his back.  The antagonist in this play is Iago.  He is jealous of the promotion Cassio has received from Othello, and takes matters into his own hands to get revenge.  His plan is to talk Cassio into meeting with Desdemona, at certain opportune times so that Othello might catch a glimpse of them together of find clues that have been seeing each other.  He then plants the seed of jealousy in Othello’s mind, “Iago: Did Michael Cassio, when you wooed my lady, know of your love?

Othello: He did, from first to last.  Why does thou ask?

Iago: But for a satisfaction of my thought; No further harm.” (3.3.94-98)

     Iago slowly but surely gets his plan to work.  Othello is so certain that Desdemona has been unfaithful that comes to her room and kills her, and later himself,  “Desdemona: O, banish me, my lord, but kill me not!

Othello: Down, strumpet!

Desdemona: Kill me to-morrow; let me live to-night!

Othello: Nay, if you strive”(5.2.78-81)

     Some might ask the question, was Othello really that gullible to fall for all of Iago’s tricks and deceit or was Iago just that cleaver?  I tend to agree with the latter.  In my opinion I believe Othello was not gullible, but too trusting.  Iago was supposed to be a man her could trust, he served under him certainly he wouldn’t lead Othello astray.  Well he did and he did a pretty darn good job of it too.  Iago used Othello’s trust against him; he knew that he could say certain things without looking like some kind of tattletale.  He never came right out and said anything he just suggested certain situations. 

     Iago’s cleaver and devious tendencies are the direct result of being jealous.  He couldn’t stand that Michael Cassio, a mere man of high learning, whom he believed took his position when promoted.  Iago used his cunning abilities to attempt to have Cassio murdered, thought he was able to escape.  I don’t know how Iago feels in the end when he is basically to blame for the deaths of two innocent people, but Lodovico, has a final statement to Iago on the matter, “This heavy act with heavy heart relate.” 

    

A Doll House

     A Doll House is a very interesting play about making difficult decisions.  Our main character, Nora, has several major decisions to make.  The first major decision is the decision to take money from Krogstad.  Nora gets bad news that unless her husband gets to a warmer climate he will most certainly die.  She decides to keep the information to herself and then takes matters into her own hands when she takes a loan from Krogstad, a loan shark.  She then makes the decision to forge her father’s signature as a cosigner.  The last major decision she has to make is whether or not to leave her husband and family.

     Her first decision to is actually not to take the money from Krogstad, but to hide her husband’s ailment from him.  “Krogstad: When your husband was sick, you came to me for a loan…”  Why did Nora not want her husband to know he was ill?  This is a question I have thought about a lot and one we discussed in class.  I believe the main reason was because she didn’t want him to be stress out.  He has a good job, and tried to play off the vacation to Italy, as a gift from her father. 

     Nora then decides to get a loan from Krogstad, whom works at the bank with Torvold her husband.  Its bad enough she is taking a loan from a loan shark, but then she decides to use her father as a cosigner, forges his signature, and then dates it after he has already passed away!  While the decision to not tell Torvold of is illness was wrong but not all that bad, her decision to take this loan and then forge her father’s signature was downright stupid.  “Krogstad: Tell me, Mrs. Helmer, do you happen to recall thte date of your father’s death?  Nora: Papa died the twenty-ninth of September. Krogstad: This is the curious thing: that your father cosigned the note for your loan three days after his death.”  There is no justifying her actions in this situation.

     As the story continues Torvold is informed of his wife’s wrongdoing by a letter from Krogstad causing Torvald to explode on Nora and tell her she cannot raise the kids anymore.  This is when Nora sees the true side of her husband, he is only worried about his reputation, and how this will look to his co-workers.  “Torvold: Oh, what an awful awakening! In all these eight years-she who was my pride and joy-a hypocrite, a liar-worse, worse-a criminal!…Now you’ve wrecked all my happiness-ruined my whole future…You’ll go right on living in this house, of course.  But you can’t be allowed to bring up the children; I don’t dare trust you with them.”  Torvold then receives another letter from Krogstad with the note and a statement that he will not make this incident public.  Nora saw the true side of her husband, only worried about himself, “I’m saved. Nora, I’m saved!” this is when she makes her final decision.  Torvald apologizes and takes it all back, but she has seen what a selfish man he is, she has seen that he truly only cares about himself, and doesn’t trust her with her own kids.  She makes the decision to leave.  I completely agree with her, Torvold turned out to be an awful self-centered person, that doesn’t even trust her.  Yes she is leaving her children but I do believe she will come back somewhere down the road and I’m sure she won’t be completely out of their lives.

    

Behind Grandma's House

     Behind Grandma’s House was great comic relief from some of the more serious poems we had read.  The poem is about a boy behind his grandmother’s house, trying to act tough by doing some ridiculous things; “kicking over trash cans…I hurled light bulbs like grenades…I flicked rocks at cats.” (lines 6, 8, 11)  He is doing everything he can in this alley to disturb the peace.  He even goes as far as swearing at an imaginary priest.  This is when his grandmother comes outside and says, “Let me help you.”(line 20) She then proceeds to punch him between the eyes.

     Was I glad when his grandma punched him in the face? I was a little bit, as awful as that sounds.  This kid needed to be put in his place, after cursing like a sailor.  Maybe the grandma could have taken a different rout and washed his mouth out with soap, which would have been sufficient as well, but she decided to go old school and pop him right in between the eyes.  In the old days she would have easily gotten away with this claiming she was disciplining him but today, if anyone saw what she did, she would probably go to jail.

     I myself was once a ten-year-old boy so I know what it is like to want to be tougher and older.  I would often find myself trying to play touch football with boys that were four or five years older than my and I learned pretty fast that those four of five year made a huge difference.  They could’ve played for the Steelers, well at least in my mind they could have.  I got my butt whopped repeatedly, I came home with grass stains all over my clothes and I couldn’t be happier.  My mom wasn’t too happy though.  “At the I wanted fame.” (line 1)I can relate with this little boy, I tried to be tough I wanted to be a pro football player but wasn’t ready for the big boys…in middle school, while he tried to be tough and was put in his place by of all people, his grandma.  I’m pretty sure he’s tougher from this experience, and in the end he will be a stronger man.  He will be humbled by this experience and hopefully he’ll work hard to achieve whatever goals he wants in life, and hopefully those goals aren’t being a criminal or a tough guy because I’m sure no matter where he’s at in life if his grandma is still around she would be more than willing to put him in his place.

    

My Papa's Waltz

      When first reading My Papa’s Waltz one could think this was just a father swinging and dancing around with their child, but after further review it looks at different than that.  My group in class was chosen to analyze this poem and we all said the same thing, a drunken dad swinging his kid around.  We actually all re-read it several times, each time we would find something new that we didn’t notice.  Obviously the first line, “The whisky on your breath could make a small boy dizzy.”(lines 1-2) is a dead giveaway that this father has just returned from the bar and is drunk.  The next set of line is where we started to debate, my opinion was that the father was drunk and dame home and thought it would be fun to swing his child around, while others thought the father was angry and possibly abusing the child.

     “We romped until the pans slid from the kitchen shelf; my mothers countenance could not unfrown itself.”(lines 5-8)  Some saw this as an awful scene, they imagined “romped” as a play on words meaning something completely different from dancing, possibly once again abusing the child throwing him/her around the kitchen as mom watched in sadness and disapproval.  I took the more optimistic view, I believe the father was just so drunk that he was dancing and moving around with his child and knocking things all over the place.  The mother, well she just didn’t approve of what old drunk dad was doing, I think she was more annoyed with him than anything.

     The next stanza was more of the same, dad is stumbling around trying to dance and every miss step he takes causes the child’s ear to scrape on his belt buckle.  There was no debate here we all agreed that dad couldn’t walk straight and he was either dragging the child with him or dancing through the house.

     The final stanza had more debatable lines in it.  “You beat time on my head” (line 13) some believed he was actually abusing this child, actually slapping them on the head, but I disagree.  I really do believe the father was still just dancing around tapping the child on the head as they moved.  I can actually remember my dad tapping me on the head to music while sitting on his lap as a child, so I thought nothing of this line.  He then put the child to bed, “still clinging to your shirt”, was the child holding on out of terror or did they just not want the fun to end. I believe it was the latter.

     Maybe I am naïve but don’t see this as a negative situation.  Yes it might be a little crazy and it wouldn’t be as bad if dad wasn’t drunk, but I think it’s all just good old-fashioned fun.  My father always did goofy and fun things like this with me, and while he wasn’t drunk I still think it is a comparable situation.  I don’t think the father being drunk is the main idea in this poem; I think it’s the fun memory that is being portrayed.

Executive Order 9066

     I enjoy the innocence of this poem, In Response to Executive Order 9066.  The opening line of her letter has young and naïve written all over it, “Of course I’ll come. I’ve packed my galoshes and three packets of tomato seeds.”(lines 2-3)  The US government had ordered all Japanese American citizens to relocation centers during WWII to ensure no spies were trading secrets.  And to think this little girl says willingly “Of course I’ll come.” She had no idea what her people were being subjected to, this was a dark time in the United State and segregating our own people, Japanese American citizens that had been here for years is unforgivable. 

     It takes this little girls innocent letter to make one realize that she is not a spy nor is her family.  She is as far removed from being Japanese as her white friend Denise, “I have always felt funny using chopsticks and my favorite food is hotdogs.” (lines 8-9) These thousands of families all had stories like this, none of them came to America to be Japanese they came here to be American. 

     Because of our ignorance, this young girl is shunned by her best friend.  One could blame it on her parents for putting the idea into her head, but the media is more than likely the culprit.  Why else would an average 14-year-old girl say: “You’re trying to start a war, giving secrets away to the Enemy.  Why can’t you keep your big mouth shut?”(lines 18-20)  As if this young Japanese American girl has direct contact with the Japanese Government.  I really can’t compare any experience in my life to what this girl went through, not many people can, and any attempt would be a disgrace to what her and her family went through.  Do I think it’s effective to have this young girls letter representing this complex historical event? No, but it is a lot easier to read than a recount of the deaths and loss the Japanese Americans suffered.

Elephant Man

     Enter Treves.  “For God’s sakes.  What is going on here?  What is going on?

Mrs. Kendal:  For a moment, Paradise, Freddie.

Treves:  But-have you no sense of decency?  Woman, dress yourself quickly.  Are you not ashamed?  Do you know what you are?  Don’t you know what is forbidden?”(42 Pomerance)

     The argument, short but sweet, from The Elephant Man between Treves and Mrs. Kendal, is one that shapes the play.  The events leading up to it, and the consequences after leave a lot to consider.  In this exert Treves is not only angry because Mrs. Kendal is doing something deemed inappropriate in this setting, but he is also angry because deep down he believes Merrick should be treated differently as if he is not human.

     Treves enters the room and is not only shocked but also angry, and immediately asks for answers.  In his mind he walked into something that was extremely inappropriate, and unforgivable.  Mrs. Kendal immediately responds with what is on her mind, “Paradise.”

     Mrs. Kendal sees no wrong in what she just did; she saw it as an opportunity to educate an obviously curious Merrick.  He had never been in a situation to see the female body in all its glory, and Mrs. Kendal thought she could help Merrick with this simple, harmless gesture of friendship.

     She began to dress and Treves goes on a rant about having decency and being ashamed, and asks her if she knows what is forbidden.  Treves believes he is defending Merrick’s innocence, while in fact Merrick isn’t a child or mentally incompetent or anything else that Merrick sometime depicts him as, he is a young man.  The argument ends at this point as the light fades out.

     The outcome of this disagreement hurts two people, Merrick and Mrs. Kendal.  These two had become almost like two girlfriends that would talk and talk and they both really seemed to learn something from each other.  Treves doesn’t see it that way for some reason, he see Merrick as something almost non human that should be treated differently and shouldn’t have the same feelings as ‘normal’ people, and he could not be more wrong.  Keeping these two from each other is unjust and though we never hear from Mrs. Kendal again, Merrick definitely suffers.

     This moment in the play most certainly affects Merrick for the rest of the play.  He isn’t as happy, almost sort of seems to give up on life.  He spends the rest of the play just going through the motions.  Treves doesn’t seem to take much notice in the way Merrick has changed even though his disdain is brought the Doctor.  As readers we can see Merrick slowly giving up on everything and eventually passing away. Merrick lost his best friend in this disagreement and never recovers. 

Trifles

      Trifles is a play about murder, deceit, and an investigation.  I honestly think this could be an episode of Law and Order.  A lonely housewife is treated coldly by her husband and endures.  She finally snaps when he killed the one thing that brought her joy, her bird.  There is a police investigation and one of the investigators has a wife that knew the accused woman.  Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale are there during the investigation and act as if they are just two oblivious women, but they in fact have a theory of their own and evidence that can prove it!

     Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters discuss what happened to their friend and what could’ve possibly happened to her husband.  The both discuss that the alleged murder happened with a rope, in the middle of the night silently.  Both of the women seem slightly suspicious but neither want to admit that Mrs. Henderson probably did it. 

“Mrs. Hale: Do you think she did it?

Mrs. Peters: Oh, I don’t know.

Mrs. Hale: Well, I don’t think she did.  Asking for an apron and her little shawl.  Worrying about her fruit.”

     The women go back and forth debating the situation and are walking around the downstairs looking around, while the men are upstairs.  The men come downstairs when they over hear the women talking, “Mrs. Hale: I wonder if she was goin’ to quilt it or knot it?

Sheriff: They wonder if she was going to quilt it or just knot it!”

     The women inadvertently played dumb when the men came back around, which in the end helps them.  At this point the women start stumbling into evidence, such as the empty birdcage.  This becomes the topic of their conversation and soon they stumble into the carcass of the dead bird.  The bird’s neck was forcibly broken and with one look they both come to the same conclusion about the birds death.  The attorney comes into the room and they play dumb once again, “County Attorney: Has the bird flown?

Mrs. Hale: We think the – cat got it. County Attorney: Is there a cat?

Mrs. Peters: Well, not now. They’re superstitious you know. They leave.”

    The two women lied.  They lied to protect their friend.  They lied to cover up the motive.  This is when they both are caught in this moral dilemma, should they turn in the evidence and let their friend go to prison for murder or do they continue to play the innocent dumb women.  The two argue back and forth and then the men return to the room when they hide the dead bird, which would be the key piece of evidence, it would be the motive and Mrs. Hale stashed it in her pocket.

     People debate over whether or not the women did the right thing.  Some say the law is the law, but others say that Mr. Wright did not give her the life she wanted.  He was not a bad man just a very cold and detached man.  He showed no love and the only thing that made Mrs. Wright happy; the one small thing that gave her joy was taken from her from her husband.  Some would say this isn’t a justified reason but put in the same situation as Mrs. Hale and Peters, and I would certainly do they same.

  

    

Snake

    I guess I've always looked at snakes at these nasty, evil creatures.  They're always just slithering around looking for something to kill.  After reading D.H. Lawrences' Snake I learned my thoughts couldn't be further from the truth.  The snake in this poem is just looking for a drink of water and is doing so in the most royal and majestic way possible and how our narrator has nothing but respect for this creature at first saying: “Was it humility, to feel so honoured? I felt so honoured.”(line 33-34)  The narrator really appreciates that this snake is drinking from his trough and show him respect by not killing him or scaring him away in the beginning.  He even gets angry at himself for thinking the way we all would, for thinking about killing this snake. 

     In most of our minds we are wired to see snakes as evil creature.   Whether it’s from bible stories or just from seeing a role model such as your grandfather kill one while you are young to protect you, we view these creatures as worthless killers.  Now even our narrator, who seems to really appreciate the beauty of this creature, is having second thoughts, “And voices in me said, If you were a man you would take a stick and break him now, finish him off.”(lines 25-26) 

     We act on instinct and even as strong as our willpower can be instinct takes over and there is almost nothing you can do about it.  Our narrator seems to have over powered his instinct to kill this snake. He watches the snake drink and then watches as he starts to leave.  He starts to enter a small hole and with just the end of his tail showing our narrator acts.  “I picked up a clumsy log and threw it at the water-trough with a clatter.”(lines 55-57)  Instinct took over and he regrettably threw the log in the direction because deep down his willpower was telling him not to hurt this creature. 

     Despite everything we sometimes disappoint ourselves.  It may be accidental or it may be something we could’ve prevented.  Our narrator is extremely disappointed in himself, “And immediately I regretted it.  I thought how paltry, how vulgar, what a mean act!  I despised myself and the voices of my accursed human education.”(lines63-65)  It may not seem like a monumental event, scaring away a snake, but to our narrator, he respected that snake, he felt a certain amount of respect from the snake just gracing him with his presence.  He feels that he may even have bad luck now from his actions, comparing them to killing an albatross.  He missed a golden opportunity to respect this beautiful creature and possibly enjoy him in the future.  It is a sad ending to a possible great friendship between this man and a snake.

    

Monkey see Monkey Do

     The first thought that comes to mind when reading “To Help the Monkey Cross the River” is a scene out of “Man vs Wild” with Bear Gryllis.  In place of Bear is our narrator, who is kind of a bad ass, living in nature and watching over the creatures of the jungle.  Although the speaker in “To Help the Monkey Cross the River” seems maybe rough around the edges and willing to kill the predators in order for the monkey to succeed in crossing the river, we find out that he is actually a compassionate person that really appreciates nature around him, but we also see that he understands survival of the fittest in the jungle.  Our narrator is a man of nature and closely resembles the outdoorsy characteristics of Bear Gryllis.

    The first clue towards this idea is when our speaker checks the water to determine if there are any threats to the monkey.  “I look first upriver: predators move faster with the current than against it” (Lux, line8, 9).  This leads one to believe that our speaker has experience in dealing with predators.  Our speaker knows how they move and where they are coming from.  One starts to believe that for whatever reason our speaker is the protector of this monkey and will take aim and shoot at an oncoming predator.  I myself have been in similar situations, coaching high school soccer in which a smaller weaker student is being picked on by a much stronger student, and I have either stepped in to stop it or I’ve even seen one of his larger teammates stick up for him and scare away the “bully”. 

     It is at this point in the reading that one thinks they have our speaker pinned down; they know exactly what he is going to do next.  “If a crocodile is aimed from upriver to eat the monkey and an anaconda from downriver burns with the same ambition, I do the math, algebra, angles, rate-of-monkey, croc-and snake-speed, and if, if it looks as though the anaconda or the croc will reach the monkey before he attains the river’s far bank, I raise my rifle and fire” (Lux, line 10, 18).  This is when I was rooting for the monkey to make it and rooting for our speaker to take down the anaconda or croc to help him.  Our speaker was doing an admirable thing; he is helping the underdog little monkey to succeed in crossing the river and reaching his goal of food. 

     As a sports fan it is always fun to see the “big upset” and I think what makes that fun is our compassion as people to understand the odds that are stacked against the underdog, and they things they must persevere through to accomplish that goal.  Which is exactly what one thinks is happening in this poem, that our speaker is a fan of the underdog and wants to see him win against the tougher opponents, the anaconda and the croc.  In a lot of ways our speaker seems a lot like the everyday person in this aspect, as we always seem to root for the underdog to fight the good fight and hopefully come out on top.  In this case it seems as if our speaker is taking matters into his own hands to make sure this “big upset” happens.

     “One, two, three, even four times into the river…”(Lux line 19). At this point one is nearly certain that the narrator is shooting at the predators to ensure the safety of the monkey.  After reading the next line one finally realizes what our narrator has in mind when taking aim:  “…just behind the monkey to hurry him up a little” (Lux lines 20, 21).  This whole poem has led up to this point, the climax, when shot are fired.  Our narrator chooses not to harm the predators but instead helps the monkey in a different way.  He wants the underdog to win but will not cheat the croc and anaconda out of the competition.  I believe this shows how much he appreciates nature and survival of the fittest.  He is allowing the croc and anaconda to continue to come at the monkey while encouraging the monkey to swim a little faster.  He appreciates nature for all it’s worth but refuses to see the monkey half heartedly swim across the river, so he pushes him to the limit to ensure he gives the predators his all.  In conclusion I believe our narrator is a much more complex person than he originally seems.  He is a nature lover, believer of survival of the fittest, and loves to see the underdog give it his all and win.  He is the average American man.