Yikes Maxine

I just read chapter 8 of The Namesake by Jhumpa Lahiri. This chapter had a main focus on Gogol's love and relationships. Man it was filled with romance and relationships. The beginning started off sadly commencing with "the additional absence of Maxine" (Lahiri 188). We find out at the beginning of the chapter that his beautiful relationship with Maxine is over and the broke up. It is unclear who broke up with who however I believe that Gogol broke up with Maxine (mutual break up though) because of a fight she started about him spending too much time with his family.

Keep in mind that this goes on within the year (mostly at the end) that his dad dies. Now personally, I think that would be so difficult and hard to go through. For Gogol and his family, it is the same way. his family and he take it so hard and mourn together. It seems to bring his family together because they spend more time together. They are forced to go through it together. They visit Ashima on weekends more often and call every night. Maxine unfortunately doesn't take it well. "They began to argue about this" with "Maxine going so far one day as to admit that she felt jealous of his mother and sister" (Lahiri 188). This insecurity of feeling jealous of his mother and sister seems absurd to me along with Gogol. They are his family and they were going through a rough time together. I don't think she should've felt jealous, but instead comforted him and supported him. He really needed her in this time of sadness and death. However, instead he turned to his family and went through it with them. To me, that shows how maybe he didn't have as much of a connection with Maxine and didn't feel close enough with her to go to her for support. So maybe it is best they broke up. 

Hopefully you enjoyed this post. Let me know what you think. Is it best that they broke up?

Identity

Well, I've gotten through 4 more chapters of The Namesake and I am now at chapter 6. A lot has happened. Gogol (I guess now Nikhil) has grown a lot and is now in college! Lots of years have gone by in only 6 chapters, but one main theme I've noticed in searching for identity. The Ganguli family as a whole cannot seem to figure out how which culture to associate themselves with and how much. They seem lost. I could really feel them being tugged and pulled by the different cultures and traditions.

Gogol seems to really be stuck between two cultures. His roots are in India with his family, yet he lives in America and was raised there. I know if I were in his position, it would feel weird and odd knowing that you and you're sister are the only ones who were born and grew up somewhere different from India. It seems hard for him to figure out which traditions to celebrate and which to not. It must be tough not celebrating some common American traditions while in America and instead celebrating the Indian ones that few people know about. 

The one thing that doesn't seem to help him through this is his name. His name provides no clarity on who he is and provides no help to find his identity as more of an Indian or an American. For most of the book, he believes he was named Gogol only because it's his dad's favorite author. He cannot figure out why they would not name him under an Indian name or even an American name (seeing they live in the US). It bothers him SO much and he cannot stand his name whether it's writing it, hearing it, or even just seeing it. He explains "What dismays him most is the irrelevance of it all" (76). He's not russian, and it's not HIS favorite author.

The result of all this identity searching is rebelliousness. As he grows into a teenager and starts to go to college, we see Gogol start to rebel a little bit. He goes to parties, drinks, etc. The search for his identity and the struggle between Indian culture and American must be tough and put a load on his shoulders. The way he "lets off steam" you could say is to rebel. I sure hope this doesn't continue and he stays on the right path the rest of the book. 

The Namesake

Wow! So I just read the first 2 chapters of The Namesake by Jhumpa Lahiri. You know, I went in thinking it would be another boring novel for English but I actually enjoyed it! However, it was only the first two chapters so I have to keep reading to see if things stay the same. One thing in the book really interested me: the connection between Ashoke's mother fearing he would be hit by a bus or a tram and die while reading a book and how Ashoke almost actually died, deep into "The Overcoat".

So here's where it started, Lahiri explains how Ashoke was always reading books and how "Ashoke's mother was always conviced that her eldest son would be hit by a bus or a tram, his nose deep into War and Peace. That he would be reading a book the moment he died" (13). I think the assumption here (at least what I thought while reading) is that he would be reading and be so into the book that he wouldn't notice a tram or bus coming, and he would then get hit and die. To me, that is quite sad that his mother was CONVINCED that he would get hit and be reading a book when he died. The interesting part is that she would almost right, but not in the way that I think she expected or thought he would. 

So now I'll explain what ACTUALLY happened. As a 22 year old, he was traveling on the 83 Up Howrah-Ranchi Express to visit his grandparents for the holidays. So at night, everyone went to bed and was asleep except for Ashoke. Can you guess what he was doing? Reading, of course! So at 2:30 in the morning, the tram derailed and his bogie capsized and was flung far into a field. Most of the people asleep died, but Ashoke stayed alive (obviously still injured however). 

So here's the interesting connection: his mom believed he would be reading a book when he died and he ALMOST did die while reading a book (technically "The Overcoat" is a short story, but it's the reading something that matters). However, the complexity is the fact that him reading is what saved him contrary to what his mom thought (that reading the book would indirectly kill him)! The only reason he was not sleeping is because he was reading; had he been sleeping, he would have died like the rest... How's that for a twist? I really enjoyed reading that part. 

I'm excited to see where Gogol, Ashima, and Ashoke go next!

Notes From Underground

After reading the first part of Notes from Underground, we learn a lot about the character of the man who lives underground. He is a man filled with contempt and spite. He is a bitter man living in St. Petersburg , Russia in the 1860s. As an ex-civil service worker, he lives in a corner house. He gets food from money that he inherited. The protagonist throughout the book contradicts himself and inflicts self harm. 

In the book, he explains how "there is even enjoyment in a toothache" (13). Within this comment, he contradicts himself and inflicts self harm. Most people can attest to the fact that toothaches can be quite painful and unpleasant. He agrees that it can be painful but argues that you can still find enjoyment in the pain. I understand finding enjoyment in something boring or unpleasant, but I do not understand finding enjoyment in something PAINFUL. Throughout the book, one of the themes we see is this man contradicting himself just like he does here. The man finds enjoyment in pain so he inflicts self harm and brings on pain. 

He seems to enjoy all the bitter things in his life and does everything in the book out of spite. I didn't understand what spite was before reading this, but he engrains the definition by using spite so much. Spite is the desire to hurt and annoy. 

In the first page of the book, he comments that his "liver is diseased" (3) but he doesn't "treat it and never [will]" (3). Clearly here he shows how he inflicts self harm and pains himself by not seeing a doctor or getting treated. He makes no attempts to try to get it better out of spite. He then explains how "I know better than anyone that I thereby injure only myself and no one else." (3). He injures himself and doesn't even care enough to make an attempt to get better. He is clearly a bitter man full of spite.

Overall, I found the first part to be a tougher read because all of his notes put together was not too clear about what he was saying, but two themes of contradiction and self-infliction were clearly present. 

Single Story Essay

Jacob Rosenberg

1-30-14

English II

C block

Single Story Essay

            In the book, Things Fall Apart, and the New York Times article, “Only Children: Selfish and Lonely,” the authors, Chinua Achebe and Lauren Sandler, paint a more complete story of their communities of Africa and only children. Achebe dispels untrue parts of Africans such as being civilized and unable to communicate well similarly to how Sandler destroys the idea of only children always being lonely and selfish. Achebe flaws her character to show some of the single story to be true of how they are barbaric and violent in the same way as Sandler points out how some only children do get lonely at a certain time in their life. Although Achebe and Sandler write about completely different topics, they both complete their single stories by pointing out noble features of their communities such as faith, spirituality, and high intelligence and self-esteem. Through dispelling untrue myths, showing some of the single story flaws to be true, and demonstrating positive attributes of Nigeria and only children, Achebe and Sandler attempt to complete the single stories of Africa and only children.

            Achebe and Sandler destroy the single stories by making arguments against untrue myths. Achebe denies the single story that Africa is uncivilized when he explains that “among these people a man was judged according to hid worth and not that of his father. Okonkwo was clearly cut out for great things” (7) . The ibo people have a social hierarchy and social mobility. Achebe uses Okonkwo’s ability to stray away from his father and his class to show that the Ibo people were civilized.  Sandler points out that "in hundreds of studies during the past decades exploring 16 character traits — including leadership, maturity, extroversion, social participation, popularity, generosity, cooperativeness, flexibility, emotional stability, contentment — only children scored just as well as children with siblings" (Sandler, pars. 4). Achebe disproves that Africans are uncivilized in the same way that Sandler proves that only children have similar characteristics as any other kid.

Achebe and Sandler disprove the pieces of the single story that they do not believe are true. Sandler states that “findings suggest that solitude is not synonymous with loneliness and often strengthens character" (Sandler, pars. 5). Sandler uses findings to dispel the common idea that living as an only child causes loneliness. Sandler explains that being alone does not cause us to be lonely, as opposed to the assumption of many. Sandler then comments that "it turns out brutal sibling rivalry isn’t necessary to beat the ego out of us; peers and classmates do the job" (Sandler, pars. 4) in a similar way to how Achebe explains that "Among the Ibo the art of conversation is regarded very highly, and proverbs are the palm-oil with which words are eaten. Okoye was a great talker and he spoke for a long time, skirting around the subject and hitting it finally" (7). Sandler explains how siblings aren’t needed to stop an ego because kids at school will have the same effect. In this way, Sandler helps to prove that only children are not always selfish similarly to how Achebe proves that not all Africans do not know how to communicate well.  The Ibo people look at communication as a highly important art. They have people in their clan who speak extremely well, who disprove the single story that all Africans struggle to communicate.

            Achebe and Sandler complete the single stories of their communities by revealing the flaws of the single story that are true. During the Week of Peace, Okonkwo’s wife leaves without telling him "And when she return[s] he beat[s] her very heavily" (29).  Achebe chooses to show how parts of the single story are true such as the Africans being barbaric and violent. In the Ibo tribe, it was not unnatural for a man to beat his wife. Even though these people were civilized, they were still barbaric and violent at times. In her article, Sandler talks about how “still there is something existentially troubling about the idea of facing one’s parents’ mortality alone" (Sandler, pars. 12). She explains how an only child could be lonely and feel alone when they face their parent’s death without anyone to go through it with. Achebe and Sandler both disclose weaknesses in the single story of their respective communities in an effort to create a complete story of Africa and only children, not one with only positives.

Achebe and Sandler complete the single stories by showing the positive aspects of their communities that people do not usually associate with Africa and only children. When the white men come to Nigeria for imperialist reasons, Uchendu bursts out saying, "never kill a man who says nothing. Those men of Abame were fools. What did they know about the man?" (140). Achebe points out how the Ibo people had ethics and morals. They did not want to kill a man just because he was not of their kind. In a similar way to show positive characteristics, Sandler explains how it was "found that only children had demonstrably higher intelligence and achievement; only children have also been found to have more self-esteem" (Sandler, Pars. 7). Sandler explains how studies have shown that only children have tested with a higher intelligence and more self-esteem than children with siblings. Achebe and Sandler both try to surface positive characteristics for Africa and only children that usually do not come up in their single stories. Achebe brings up that Africans do have faith and spirituality when he explains how “a man could not rise above the destiny of his chi. The saying of the elders was not true - that if a man said yea his chi was also affirmed. Here was a man whose chi said nay despite his own affirmation" (114). Achebe tries to show how the Africans did believe in spirituality despite their single story.  In the novel, Okonkwo “worship[s] them with sacrifices of kola nut, food and palm-wine, and offered prayers to them on behalf of himself, his three wives and eight children" (14). The Ibo people sacrifice and pray to the gods. Achebe demonstrates that they had a faith, completing the single story even more.

            In their texts, Achebe and Sandler attempt to give a more complete single story of Africa and only children. The single story of Africa is that Africans are uncivilized, barbaric, unable to communicate, and that they need help. Achebe dispels the untrue parts of the single story in the same way that Sandler destroys the single story of only children being lonely and selfish. They both attempt to complete the unfinished half of the single story, known as the “lions” perspective because they never tell the story because they lost and have no say. There is always more to a single story because most single stories only show one perspective, the “hunters” perspective.

Bibliography

Achebe, Chinua. Things Fall Apart. New York: Anchor, 1994. Print.

Sandler, Lauren. "Only Children: Lonely and Selfish?" Nytimes.com. New York Times, 08 June 2013. Web. 6 Feb. 2014.

Thesis and Outline for TFA essay

Thesis: Through dispelling untrue myths, showing some of the single story flaws to be true, and demonstrating positive aspects of these communities, Achebe and Sandler attempt to complete the single stories of Africa and only children.

Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe

"Only Children: Lonely and Selfish?" article from the New York Times by Lauren Sandler


I. Achebe and Sandler destroy the single stories by making arguments against untrue myths

A. "In hundreds of studies during the past decades exploring 16 character traits — including leadership, maturity, extroversion, social participation, popularity, generosity, cooperativeness, flexibility, emotional stability, contentment — only children scored just as well as children with siblings"

B. "It turns out brutal sibling rivalry isn’t necessary to beat the ego out of us; peers and classmates do the job."

C. "Their findings suggest that solitude is not synonymous with loneliness and often strengthens character."

D. "Among the Ibo the art of conversation is regarded very highly, and proverbs are the palm-oil with which words are eaten. Okoye was a great talker and he spoke for a long time, skirting around the subject and hitting it finally."(7)




II. Achebe and Sandler complete the single stories of their communities by revealing the flaws of the single story that are true

A."Still there is something existentially troubling about the idea of facing one’s parents’ mortality alone"

B. "And when she returned he beat her very heavily" (29) 

III. Achebe and Sandler complete the single stories by showing the positive aspects of their communities that people do not usually associate with Africa and only children

A. "Never kill a man who says nothing. Those men of Abame were fools. What did they know about the man?" (140)

B. "found that only children had demonstrably higher intelligence and achievement; only children have also been found to have more self-esteem."

Things Fall Apart- Exiling

Is it right for a man to be punished for something that was not his fault?



This question can be very controversial. From one point of view, even if it was not the man's fault, it still happened therefore he should be punished. There is another point of view that because it was an accident and not his fault, the man should be forgiven and not punished.



However, it is not just one answer for every incident where this happens. The answer could depend on many different variables such as the severity of the incident and what he is being accused for.



This question arose for me when i read Things Fall Apart. "Okonkwo's gun had exploded and a piece of iron had pierced the boy's heart" (Achebe 125). Because of this fluke explosion, he killed the boy at the funeral. In their society, this had a major consequence, to be exiled from the village for 7 years. There was no question about it, under that circumstance, his family had to be exiled. I thought this was too harsh when I read it. I believe that maybe a debt of yams would have been a more appropriate consequence because a man was killed because of him, BUT it was not his fault the gun exploded.



Obierika later questions "why should a man suffer so grievously for an offense he had committed inadvertently?" (Achebe 125). When I read through this part in the book, I had questioned the exact same thing. Not everyone in the tribe thought it was the right punishment, but they all knew that they could not change anything by speaking up, so they left it the way it was.


Throughout the book, we see that this tribe had many traditions that HAD to be followed. This had to happen if someone committed that crime so no one questioned it or tried to fight it. If something like that happened today, the person would fight and try to win the case to not be punished. There clearly are major differences from then and today.

Matt Killingsworth: Want to be happier?

In this TED talk, Matt Killingsworth talks about happiness.

He starts by talking about how people in the past strived for things like a bigger house, a nicer car, and a good job. They thought that these were the keys to happiness. Recently however, he says that people have been thinking scientifically of how people could be happier.

So, as a scientist himself, he created an app called Track Your Happiness. The app sent you alerts daily asking three questions. It asked 1. How happy are you on a scale of very good or very bad 2. what are you doing (22 activities you could have been doing) and 3. Are you focused or mind wandering about something neutral, pleasant, or negative. They collected a lot of data and came to some conclusions.

He concluded that no matter what your mind is wandering about, pleasant or not, that people are always happier in the moment focused on the task they are doing. Who knew--that to be happier you could just focus on what you are doing? It seems like when you are sad, you might wander about happy things, but according to Killlingsworth, just focusing and living in the moment will keep you happier.

So their data pointed to a connection with mind wandering and unhappiness. They had to distinguish which was the cause and effect, because in life, there is always one that causes the other. They wanted to know if mind wandering caused unhappiness as they hypothesized or if unhappiness caused someone to wander. Personally, it seems logically like unhappiness causes someone to wander because they would wanna get to a better place and think about happier times, but it's actually the opposite. Most of the time, mind-wandering causes unhappiness because when people wander, they eventually think about mistakes, bad times, and regrets.

So, pretty simple right? Just stay in the moment and don't mind wander to stay happier. That's what Matt Killingsworth says. Try it out.

Although it does seem hard not to wander. According to his app's data, of all the 22 activities, most of the percent time wandering was around 50% with a max of around 75% in the shower and a minimum of 10% during sex. A second lowest was around 30% showing how much people actually do wander. He showed graphs showing how the people's average happiness when focused is slightly higher when they are mind wandering about pleasant things, significantly higher than when they wander about neutral things and way higher then when thinking about unpleasant things. Therefore Killingsworth compares mind wandering to a slot machine where you lose 50$, 20$, or just 1$, clever isn't it?

Modern Day Hamlet

If I were to imagine what "Hamlet" would be like in a different time and place, I would imagine what it would be like right now in Southern California. I would expect it to be a rich family in Orange County. In the family, there would be Old Hamlet and Gertrude in their 40s and Hamlet as a 16 year old boy. They own a lot of money that just gets passed down from generation to generation, laying on Gertrude's side. Old Hamlet's brother, Claudius wants the wealth so he tells Gertrude lies about Old Hamlet to get her to divorce him. After she divorces him, Old Hamlet, outraged at Gertrude and Claudius, moves away to New York to make money in the stock market. He gets no custody time with Hamlet. Claudius puts the moves on Gertrude to get her to marry him so he can secretly get all the wealth from the family. Claudius, Gertrude, and Hamlet live in a huge house with a tennis court in the backyard, while Old Hamlet lives in an apartment because he invested all his money in the stock market. When Hamlet finds out about what Claudius did, he becomes very angry and plots ways how to take revenge on Claudius and split up Gertrude and Claudius. Because he is only a teenager, he whines and complains a lot and doesn't get very much "relationship advice" respect from Gertrude. He becomes very dramatic and drama takes over the play instead of revenge.

Act 1 Scene 1 is where the guards along with Horatio and Barnardo await the ghost at midnight and finally see him. Now imagine in modern day southern california how this would translate out. Old Hamlet's old neighbors (friends of Hamlet's) live in New York and saw him walking by in Times Square. They couldn't believe it so they called Horatio and Barnardo, Hamlet's best friends from middle school, to come to New York to see if they could find him because he looked very troubled and different. So they flied out and they are waiting at Times Square late at night, when the neighbors saw him two nights previous. There are lights everywhere and because it is a weekend, the streets are filled, loud, and busy even though it is late at night. They finally see him, and they stop him. He tries to just ignore them and keep going but Horatio speaks up to stop him and asks questions like why are you here just like how in the play he says "what art thou that usurp'st this time of night" (1.1.54). Old Hamlet just stares at him finally recognizing him and only says "send Hamlet here." He then walks away and disappears into the crowd of people.

Later on, Hamlet will see his father and will be told to take revenge and sabotage Claudius and Gertrude's relationship. Does Hamlet succeed or doesn't he? Imagine for yourself the rest.

To be or not to be

For this week's post, I'll be comparing and contrasting these two interpretations of Hamlet's famous soliloquy "To be or not to be."In the first video, Hamlet was alone and he seemed very depressed and down. He looked and sounded as if he had nothing to live for and was questioning why he is even still living. This is how I imagined the scene the way Hamlet acted when I read it because he talks as if he has nothing to live for and questions if his life is even worth living. I thought of this scene as Hamlet's suicide scene because he contemplates taking his life. In this first video, all the colors are very dark as well. This adds to the depression and sad mood. He wears very casual clothing showing me that he has no reason to look nice and wear fancy clothing because he has nothing to live for. Lastly, in the video, I noticed that the room he was in did not seem too fancy or interesting. It looked bland.

In the second video, there was definitely a different feel and perspective about the soliloquy. He seemed upset, but not as upset as I imagined or as in the first video. To me, just from the look in his eye and the way he acted, it seemed like he was more focused on revenge than actually being depressed and truly not having a reason to live. I agreed with this setting and the clothes he was wearing than the other video. He was wearing a fancy suit, which I would imagine a prince would wear. He was in a fancy, vibrant, and rich house/ room, and the overall lighting of the room was light and not as dark as the other video. To me, I don't know why, but I kept thinking that he was thinking more of using the knife for revenge as opposed to for himself.

Overall, I preferred Hamlet's actions and the way he was portrayed in the first video better. However, I preferred the setting in the second video better because it seemed more realistic to what I expected. In the first video, the fact that he seemed SO depressed like he just had nothing to live for was what made me prefer the first one. In the book, "To be or not to be" (3.1.64) translates to is it better to be alive than dead. To me, the first video captures that better.

Revised Paragraph

The symbol of water changes throughout the story as her decision changes from a positive symbol to a negative symbol. As she thinks of the positives of going away with Frank, she thinks how “She was to go away with him by the night-boat to be his wife and to live with him in Buenos Ayres”(Joyce 21). Later on, she says how he would “save her” (Joyce 23). Joyce uses the water and the boat symbolize how she would leave overseas and escape from her home. The boat and the water would save her from her father’s wrath, and she would find a better home in Buenos Ayres. At the end of the story when the time comes to go away with Frank, she cannot go and suddenly changes her mind to think that Frank “would drown her” (Joyce 23), instead of saving her. The water suddenly changes from symbolizing a way to escape and get saved to what would make her make the wrong decision. Frank changes from a way to escape and take her away from home into the new world into to someone who will take her away from her home, which would be making the wrong decision at the end. From the beginning until the end of the story, she is never confident with her decision, which is shown through how much she changes her mind on whether she will go or not. Joyce uses the symbol of water to represent the changes in her decisions and how unconfident she is about staying or leaving. People should be confident with their decisions and make sure that they don’t let objects change drastically to change their decisions.

Joyce uses the symbol of water as a way of escaping from her home to then a way that will kill her. As she thinks of the advantages of going away with Frank, she thinks how “She was to go away with him by the night-boat to be his wife and to live with him in Buenos Ayres”(Joyce 21). Later on, she says how he would “save her” (Joyce 23). Joyce uses the water and the boat symbolize how she would leave overseas and escape from her home. The boat and the water would save her from her father’s wrath, and she would find a better home in Buenos Ayres. At the end of the story when the time comes to go away with Frank, she cannot go and suddenly changes her mind to think that Frank “would drown her” (Joyce 23), instead of saving her. The water suddenly changes from symbolizing an escape to symbolizing confinement. Joyce uses this water symbol to show how she is never confident in her decision. The drastic change from escape to confinement proves her little confidence. 

Ophelia Portrayals

In "Hamlet" by Shakespeare, in the third scene of act one, Ophelia is portrayed as a sassy sister and daughter. She seems like the stereotypical girl teenager. She dates this guy and her brother and dad try to stop her from dating him because they think he will break her heart and he is not right for her. When they try to tell her, she just listens and says that she understands, but really she will just keep dating him and doing the same thing. Ophelia seems to match this category perfectly to me. Her sass shows when she says "do not, as some ungracious pastors do,/ show me the steep and thorny way to heaven,/whiles, like a puffed and reckless libertine,/ himself the primrose path of dalliance treads,/ and recks not his own read" (1.3.51-55). Ophelia is being sassy when she comments how he should do as he preaches. She says don't go to France and go crazy while you tell me not to go crazy and be cautious with Hamlet.

In the first video, the actress portrays Ophelia very accurately to me. she seems sassy to her brother, in a friendly way. She listens to him, but doesn't believe him and thinks in the mindset of "I'll do what I want, you don't know what's best for me." She seems like an older teenager and like her and her brother can have an actual talk. But we see from her actions how they interact well, but she doesn't want to act as he says she should. She listens, but she doesn't show she is at all interested in acting how he says. When Polonius comes in, she gets more defensive. She says how Hamlet says he loves her and means it. She is loud and tries to defend her loving Hamlet. 

In the second video, the actress portrays Ophelia much differently. She looks much younger and much more innocent. She seems more helpless. She seems like the type of girl who you could affect her opinions and ideas very easily. She acts innocent and looks up to her brother and father. She also gets distracted easily, making her seem younger as well. The two actresses clearly portray Ophelia differently, one portraying her as older and able to make her own decisions and stuck in her ways. The other portrays her as mindful and actually listening. She is young and innocent and easily able to have her opinions changed. 

Hamlet First Impression

After reading scene 1 and 2 of the first act of "Hamlet," I just feel bad for Hamlet. He has clearly lost someone he cares deeply about. You can tell he feels shaken up. He seems kind of out-of-it and not all there.

Towards his mother and uncle, he acts rather peculiar. He acts as if he doesn't respect them, but he acts polite and as if he respects them to not be rude. He seems to be almost over them because he is angry that they aren't mourning over his father's death and how they are blowing it off as no big deal. Hamlet tells Horatio how "the funeral baked meats/ did coldly furnish forth the marriage tables"(1.2.179-180). He is mad how they moved on so quickly and didn't even take the time to mourn and remember his father. They just blew it off as no big deal and how "Thou know’st ’tis common. All that lives must die/
Passing through nature to eternity" (1.2.72-73). She says how death is common, and it happens all the time. He wants to mourn about his father with his widow mother who should be crying her eyes about. But, for some reason, she isn't. Hamlet doesn't understand it, and therefore it angers him that his deserving father is not getting the recollection and mourning. It also bothers Hamlet how his mother would just remarry right after the death of her husband. She acts as if he wasn't special to her, but Hamlet knows he was.

To his new parents, Hamlet acts very nonchalant, not too caring, and willing to obey. For example, when they tell Hamlet not to leave, but to instead stay with here with them, he does not fight it. He just simply says"I shall in all my best obey you, madam" (1.2.120).Although it seems like he lost some respect for them, he still acts polite and obeys their orders as his parents. Overall, my first impression of Hamlet is a person who really loved his father and is very sad about his loss. He seems like a grudge may come to form against his parents who didn't mourn over their loss and remarried right away without shedding one tear about Hamlet's father dying.

Dust, Water, and Night in “Eveline”

In James Joyce’s “Eveline,” Joyce uses the symbols of dust and water to show the crucial decision[A1]  of leaving home that Eveline has to make. The symbol of dust demonstrates the time passing her by without change showing her resentment for change. The evasive night represents the decision she struggles to make, and the many factors that affect this tough decision.  The water symbolizes the changing of her decision and as the time comes to make this decision at the end, she drastically changes her mind to stay.  Joyce uses the symbols of dust, night, and water to help us understand the challenge faced by many to struggle to make an important decision and how difficult it can be to venture out and leave home.

Joyce uses the dust at Eveline’s window to symbolize her static lifestyle, which gives light on her dislike for change making her decision more difficult. At the beginning of the story, Eveline “[looks] around the room, reviewing all of its familiar objects which she had dusted once a week for so many years, wondering where on earth all the dust came from” (Joyce 20). She thinks back to the all the years she spent in this house doing the same thing, dusting. Joyce mentions all the dusting she had done once a week to symbolize how her life has been passing her by, spending her years dusting, nothing more, just dusting. The fragment about wondering where the dust came from reiterates the idea that her life has been passing her by without change for so many years. She lives the same life for countless years with the absence of change demonstrating her inner resentment to change. [A2] Her inner resentment to change affects her decision making her want to stay. Later on in the story, as the time to make her decision nears, she “[sits] by the window, leaning her head against the window curtain, inhaling the odour of dusty cretonne” (Joyce 21). She just sits at the window, wishing that the time would never come where she would have to make her decision. Normally, when people smell something bothersome such as dusty cretonne, they became irritated or get bothered by it. Joyce shows that nothing can bother her or get her mind off of this decision she must make. The odour of dusty cretonne symbolizes this idea of  how she cannot be bothered by anything else other than this life-changing decision she must make. The only thing on her mind is this tough idea of venturing out into the world without anyone to protect her.  Venturing out alone into the big world is a thing that many young adults struggle with. They are afraid because they have had the same routines and same things their whole life, but now everything is about to change as they leave. Eveline struggles with this idea as the night invades her thoughts.[A3] 

Night symbolizes invading her time left to keep things the way they are and the past that affects her decision. As her decision nears, “she [sits] at the window watching the evening invade the avenue” (Joyce 20). Figuratively, Joyce uses the evening taking over the avenue to demonstrate how, as the dreaded time nears, it tears her apart because she runs out of time. Instead of being excited or happy about the decision coming closer, it attacks her because she is torn on whether to stay or go. In her bitterness for change, she describes the night as “invading” with a negative connotation rather than something more positive, such as “filling”. In general, people see everything in a negative way when they dread something coming in the near future because time runs out. As she contemplates staying or leaving, “she [remembers] the last night of her mother’s illness” (Joyce 22). The night symbolizes her mother’s death and the thoughts that pertain to her mother. This brings back sad thoughts about mother. With these thoughts includes a promise to her mother, that she would “keep the home together as long as she could” (Joyce 22).  This promise greatly affects her decision because she does not want to be treated like her mother was, but she also wants to keep her promise and keep her life the way it was, without change. [A4] She gets influenced because she values her promise to her mother. As the story progresses, the night does not become the worst symbol affecting her decision, water does.

The symbol of water changes throughout the story as her decision changes from a positive symbol to a negative symbol. As she thinks of the positives of going away with Frank, she thinks how “She was to go away with him by the night-boat to be his wife and to live with him in Buenos Ayres”(Joyce 21). Later on, she says how he would “save her” (Joyce 23). Joyce uses the water and the boat symbolize how she would leave overseas and escape from her home. The boat and the water would save her from her father’s wrath, and she would find a better home in Buenos Ayres.  At the end of the story when the time comes to go away with Frank, she cannot go and suddenly changes her mind to think that Frank “would drown her” (Joyce 23), instead of saving her. The water suddenly changes from symbolizing a way to escape and get saved to what would make her make the wrong decision. Frank changes from a way to escape and take her away from home into the new world and changes to someone who will take her away from her home, which would be making the wrong decision at the end. [A5] From the beginning until the end of the story, she is never confident with her decision, which is shown through how much she changes her mind on whether she will go or not. Joyce uses the symbol of water to represent the changes in her decisions and how unconfident she is about staying or leaving. [A6] People should be confident with their decisions and make sure that they don’t let objects change drastically to change their decisions.  

Joyce uses symbols of dust, night, and water to demonstrate the challenge of venturing out into the world and leaving home. The reason her decision is so tough for her in the story is because she has never left home before, and she is scared to leave and go out into the world. Joyce uses these symbols to help us understand the true struggle for some to leave home for the very first time. Add personal connection, a modern perspective. Just a suggestion, the eldest kid who helps his single parent raising a family has to make the decision to go to collage or not. The “individual” struggle of the modern “Eveline” to tie the knot.  

                      

---

 [A1]Possibly what “crucial decision” ?

 [A2]Expand more on this idea, I think

 [A3]I like the transition

 [A4]How in what way is she really influenced

 [A5]Possibly make Frank’s argument stronger, like not only “take her away from her home”, but simply help her out of the fire and into the frying pan?? Or like , give it a lot more “evil and regretful” feel

 [A6]Add transition??