Conclusion | Literary Criticism

Conclusion

Hello everybody, welcome to the conclusion of my project about Literary Criticism. It is nice for having you right here. I hope you enjoyed this blog as much as I did.

During my project I leanrt many important things. I read books/stories that I never imagine could exist. I really like the fact that most of them are related to real life situations. I am not a frequent reader; it is something that I am not accustomed to do. Now, I have a different perception of books. I personally think that when you read a book, you are learning important lessons for life. Certainly, stories teach us lessons. I have been in many places and different situations apart of my life, through readings.

I have no words to thank my mentor teacher in this project, Danielle Traverse. She is such nice person. She always tells me about the importance of reading and enjoy what we read. I can see it is true. You will never lose time when reading, unlike, you will feed your brain and knowledge. I have acquired a lot of important information that will help me during my life. I have learned how to criticize literary works. Literature goes far than reading a book. I discovered how wonderful is “the world of readers” and literature lovers.

I would like to continue my blog. If you want to read more of my entries, fell free to leave on the comments any suggestion and I will read it. My blog is yours too.

This has been such an amazing experience. I hope to see you soon, guys.

-Bell Solís

A Doll's House | Feminist Criticism

A Doll’s House

By Henrik Ibsen

Hello everybody, nice to see you again. For today we have a feminist criticism about “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen.

In this play, Ibsen shows how women were treated back then. Society has changed in a high percentage of those retrograde thoughts. Nowadays, women have equal opportunities as men. Women study and are well-prepared. We are allowed to work and earn our own money. Of course, when I say “allowed” does not mean we were not able to do it back then. When Ibsen wrote this play, he was sure about the fact that Nora represents a real life situation. If you have not read the play yet, I recommend you to do. Otherwise, you might have some misunderstandings with entry. In A Doll’s House you can see that Nora’s life is not free of choices and personal opinions. Her decisions are not important as his father or husband. They take the control of her life. She is always at home taking care of her three children, with no money to do something that she desires.

From my personal point of view, Nora projects the life of many women back then. She sacrifices herself to get money and help her husband recovering from his sickness. She does this action, keeping it as a “big secret”. There is no way to justify it. She knows that it was “a bad action” and the only ones that are “able” to take decisions are men. Besides that, Nora is a good example to see how women were seen as puppets for men. Long time ago, a woman should be at home, taking care of children, with no social life and were not allow to express opinions. That’s why, throughout the play, Nora realizes she will never be happy. Because she is full of debts and she is like a puppet. She has no a normal life. Besides that, there is not anything that can fulfill her heart and happiness. She is living a torture and a stressed life.

Nora is not allowed to take decisions by herself. But, at the end of the play, she takes one final decisions and for me, the most important. Of course, it is not simple, but she has no choice. She decides to leave her house and family. We are not talking about her husband only, but her three children. She has a little baby who needs her. Back then, this situation was not a common thing. It was rare to happen. She discovers that her life is more important than anything else. And “life” is not living. Life is being happy, loved, satisfied and thankful for everything we have. Clearly, Nora lacks of “life”. She is very brave to take that important decision, but she deserves happiness.

Now, I want to know what is your point of view about the situation presented in the play.

1.     What would you do if you were in Nora’s position?

2.   Is happiness important to survive in this life?

Attached a link to a website with a detailed summary about the play A Doll's House

If you want to watch the movie, here I attach a link to a movie of the play.

See you guys!

-Bell Solís

Charlie and the Cholate Factory | Structuralist Criticism

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

By Roald Dahl

Hello everybody! Nice to see you again. For today, we have a structuralist criticism for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl, published in 1964. 

If you have not read the story and you cannot find the book, I recommend you to watch the movie. In the movie (in which the protagonist is Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka) you will have a general idea about the story. The difference between the movie and the book is that the movie is focused on Willy Wonka, and the book is focused on Charlie, a poor little boy (the original story is based on that).

The story has two sides. First of all, we have the focal point of the story. Charlie and his family. Charlie is a little boy, who lives a small house with all his family. “All his family” means that he lives with his parents, Mr. & Mrs. Bucket, and his four grandparents. Yes, they all (seven people) live in the same small house. Besides that, they are poor, the only one who works is Mr. Bucket. He works in a toothpaste company and he does not earn a lot of money to provide a good life conditions for everyone. Charlie, is a nice and normal boy. He always hungry. He loves chocolate and likes to study. On the other hand, we have Willy Wonka. Wonka is the owner of an “ENORMOUS CHOCOLATE FACTORY!”. Which is located in Charlie’s neighborhood.

From my personal point of view, the story projects a real life situation. Charlie reflects the life of many little poor kids. He likes chocolate and he desires to eat chocolate. The sad reality is that he just receives chocolate on his birthday (He eats the chocolate in tiny pieces, to make it last for a month). On the other hand, the chocolate factory is reopening, and Wonka is giving the opportunity to five children to visit the factory if they find a golden ticket in the chocolate bars. 

Of course, to find a golden ticket, Charlie needs money. But, Charlie has something more important than the order four kids. Charlie knows how hard life is. He has faith and hope trying to find the golden ticket. That’s why, with those simple and essentials things, he found the last golden ticket to visit the factory with his grandpa Joe. At the end, Charlie won the enormous chocolate factory of Willy Wonka. The story teaches us a lesson, if you have a dream, go and fight for it. As you see, Charlie does not have enough money, but he has something more important than money. It depends mostly on your attitude towards your dream. Keep positive, and working hard for that. At the end you will have the best reward of your life, and it will be the opportunity to achieve your dreams.

Guys, I want to know what is your opinion about this story. I also have a question for you:

Do you have any dream that you would like to achieve?

Attached a link to a website with a detailed summary about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

See you later!

- Bell Solís

Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been? | Psychoanalytical Criticism

Where are you going, where have you been?

By Joyce Carol Oates

Hello everybody! This is a psychoanalytic criticism for Where are you going, where have you been? By Joyce C. Oates.

According to Oates, the story was inspired in a real life situation that happened in Tucson, Arizona in 1996. There was a serial killer, Charles Schmid who committed a triple crime. He was an obsessed adult that killed three teenagers. This sad new inspired Joyce to write the story. Oates dedicated her story to Bob Dylan, because his song “It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue” helped her to write the story.

In “Where are you going, where have you been?” we can find a common and special situation. The protagonist, Connie, she is a young lady pretending to be an adult. She acts like a “mature” person with a teenagers’ thoughts. The relation between Connie and her parents is not good at all. I mean, you might agree in this, in the adolescent we look for acceptance. At those ages, we do not have a defined personality and clear ideas about what we really want. She is trying to be a “popular girl”. Connie is a beautiful lady, everybody knows that. But she forgets something important, being “popular” and beautiful for everybody (including adults, with a big difference between the ages of them and her) can give Connie many problems.

In the story, there is a character, Arnold Friend. He pretends to be a teenager saying he is 18 years old. But the reality is that he is over 30. This guy starts to get obsessed with Connie. He knows many things of her life and family. He has serious intentions against Connie. From my personal point of view, the story gives an open imagination for the ending. At the end, we do not if he wanted to rape Connie or just killed her. If you take into account, Oates’ inspiration, we can see that Charles Schmid (the serial killer) is represented by Arnold Friend in the story. So, was Arnold out of control to kill Connie? During the story, there is an innocent girl acting with vanity and obsessed with her appearance. There is also a man, taking advantage of that innocent to commit a crime. We do not what he is pretending with Connie. Is it to rape her or to kill her? Both are crimes.

The story is reflected in real life. We have young ladies acting like adults. They do not enjoy their adolescent as they should. The way they dress or the make-up they use to impress others is really worrying. The use of social media is getting out of control. People upload everything on internet; personal photos, videos, locations. We do not who is in the other side of the screen studying and analyzing our lives. We should protect our image and privacy. Our personal life should be protected.

Now guys, I want to know what was your reaction after reading the story.

 What do you think happens at the end of the story?

 Do you have any recommendation for teenagers?

Attached a link to website with more information about Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?

See you later ;)

-Bell Solís

The Rocking Horse Winner | Formalist Criticism

The Rocking Horse Winner

 by David Herbert Lawrence

Hello everybody! For today, I bring a “formalist criticism” for you, about this story by D. H. Lawrence.

In The Rocking Horse Winner, we can agree and defer with many points of view. For my personal point of view, this story was written with a projection about “the future” living the same really that David was living. I really like this story, because I can relate real things with it. The reading presents a family, a couple that has three children who live in a decent house with good furniture. They do not lack money and essentials things to live well. On the other hand, this woman, wants to project her life as “the worst situation in life” because she lacks of money. Besides that, we can see a “Mother” who is so selfish. Everything Hester wants in her life is money. She does not give love to her children and does not take of them. That is why, the youngest in the family, Paul, starts to ride his rocking-horse to earn money and please his mother.

I personally belief, there are a lot of parents (fathers or mothers) who prefer money and a good life, instead of their children. In The Rocking Horse Winner, we can learn a good lesson for life. Paul, the young boy, wants to see his mother happy. The way he found to make it possible, was through his rocking-horse. Hester always complains about her unlucky husband and the “lack” of money in the house. She thought that money could give them a “happy” life, full of love and desires. She forgot how to be a good mother. Paul, in his innocence, has a “lucky” life. He has good predictions about the horse races using his toy. Paul earns a lot of money by betting in the races. The boy has a goal, “make his mother the happiest”. He spends his life, making predictions in his rocking horse, until he died because of overthinking.

Until this moment, Hester the mother, realize that her selfish life and desires have killed Paul. She knew that money could fill her house, but without a son, there was nothing that could fill her life and her empty heart.

Now guys, I want to know a personal critic from you, towards the story.

• Is it something that happen in real life?
• What do you think about the death of Paul?

If you have not read the story yet, here I attach a website with a summary in detail about The Rocking Horse Winner

See you guys,

-Bell Solís

Beowulf | Mythological Criticism

Beowulf

(unknown author)

   Hello everybody, thanks for being here reading my blogs once again. For today we have a Mythological Criticism for Beowulf.

Grendel's mother

    Beowulf was first created as a poem (a really long poem). There is a good movie for this poem, I recommend you to look for it and watch it. Beowulf has an unknown author, but many people claims that it was probably based on real life. In this poem, you can find a lot of important details that make it interesting. From my personal point of view, there are many aspects in which I defer, because those are beliefs that we do not have now. First of all, we have the conflicts between the king and the creatures. There are two mythological creatures fighting against the kingdom, because they (Grendel and his mother) pretend to destroy the king Hygelac. But, once Grendel is killing the soldiers from the kingdom, he cannot attempt against the king Hygelac (because he is his father). Yes, guys, that sounds weird. They are mythological creatures; how could that be possible? We can find in many stories written many years ago, the existence of these type of “living creatures”. My argument here is, if they were not humans, how they had a son (Grendel). In the past, these creatures were just like a “curse” for people.

Grendel

   On the other hand, we have Beowulf, who is the king’s nephew. He is considered the hero in this poem. Beowulf is a warrior that possess enormous strength and courageous to confront the monster (I want to make emphasis in “enormous strength”). Now, we do not have people with those “special powers”. This hero defeated Grendel and his mother, but there is actually one more thing. He got charmed by the lady and they had a son (a Dragon). Grendel’s appearance is not described at all, but he has some similarities with humans, with horrible aspects. Beowulf’s son, is a Dragon. Today, we can find this creature in many recent movies, but we do not have evidence of their actual existence. The same happens with “the hero”. His son (dragon) wants to destroy the kingdom and kill Beowulf. At the end, Beowulf, the hero dies saving and protecting innocent people from the kingdom.

Dragon

    Regarding some archetypal criticism, I want to share some with you based on the movie. We have “water”, it represents birth and life. Grendel’s mother lives into a lagoon. There is a lot of “blood” during the movie, it represents the sacrifice of many warriors protecting the kingdom. We have number three, it represents unity and power. There three creatures; Grendel and his mother, and the Dragon. There is a hero, Beowulf. And there is finally, a sacrificial scapegoat, when Beowulf, the hero, dies to save his people.

Now guys, I want to your points of view about this poem/story.

How can you relate this story with real life?

Attached a short summary video about Beowulf (click here)

See you later ;)

-Bell Solís 

Brave New World | Sociological Criticism

 Brave New World

by Aldous Huxley

Aldous Huxley

Hello everybody! For today we have a Sociological Criticism for Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. 

    Brave New World was published in 1931 by Aldous Huxley. This novel show how a “world population” is divided in categories and created and controlled through the use of high advanced technology. The main controller is called “The Director”, who works in the Central London Hatching and Conditioning Centre. There are a group of young students visiting the “World State” to learn about the fertilizing room. We can compare those guys with us. The reading takes us through the student, seeing how the world would be in the future because of the excessive use of technology. The fertilizing room is the place where “humans” grow up inside bottles to be taught by hypnopedia that society’s worth should be always over people. 

   In the world state, humans are divided into several castes: Alphas, Betas, Gammas, Deltas and Epsilons. The divisions are according to the physical appearance which is wrong. They want people to be differentiate by colors and labels. Alphas citizens are one of the best ones. They are intelligent, tall and have a good physical shape. Gammas are stupid and wear green and Deltas wear light brown. Epsilons are the worse, they’re ugly and wear black.

Brave New World is a future controlled and sterilized society that reflects a different world without sensitivity, morals and education. Aldous Huxley related the novel with some aspect of his personal life. He was addicted to Hallucinogenic Drugs. In the reading, they use a drug called “Soma”. Also, the world is projected with an “open mind” with no taboos. Children grow up in a sexual environment which is not good for them. The word “sex” and the practice of this, is something normal for them. Besides that, the divisions of the humans are a way to practice discrimination. Alphas are the best ones; they are “perfect”. On the other hand, Epsilons are considered as the worse of the world state. Nobody want to play with them, because they are ugly and fool. 

I want to know your opinion about “Brave New World”. Consider you are living in this World State and you have the “POWER” to change things.

         1.  Would you accept a world with divisions?

               2.   What would you like to change?

Here I attach a link to a website with a detailed summary about Brave New World

See you soon!

-Bell Solís