Slaughterhouse-Five: Seriously, This Layout is Terrible

"Here is how Billy Pilgrim lost his wife, Valencia."- pg 182 Hopefully this is the last blog post I will ever do ever. To touch on the actual quote I used, this is one of those helpful reminders that there is another narrator telling this story. Too often I simply fell into a flow, not realizing the story of Billy Pilgrim is a book someone was writing. It is the story of the frame story. I think, I'm not really sure, it could be the frame. Anyway, I am glad Vonnegut does not fail to remind us who is really telling this story. As the title of my post points out, I despise this new layout. It might be one of those freak-out things, like when Facebook changes and everyone goes crazy but then just gets used to it. Since this is my last blog post, I feel like I have a bit of free reign about its content. Sorry for straying off topic. But, in the immortal words of the Great Forest Gump, "That's all i gots to say 'bout that..."

Slaughterhouse-Five: Changing the Subject

"Billy dosed, awakened in the prison hospital again."- pg 137 Billy's time travel is not just to show parts of Billy's life. It allows Vonnegut to make smooth, uninterrupted transitions between these parts. It is not just when Billy goes to sleep. It can happen anywhere, even when he is just standing around. This gives Vonnegut the freedom to choose what part of Billy's life to portray whenever he wants. He can easily relate one part of Billy's life to another quickly. It is a useful strategy for writing. There is no awkwardness during the transitions. Billy simply awakens in another time, easy as that. I like the time travel because it stood out to me as what makes this story unique.

Slaughterhouse-Five: Destiny

"'Everything is all right and everybody has to do exactly what he does.'"- pg 198 Without completely coming out and saying it, this is the idea of destiny. The tralfamadorians know how the universe ends, but they can do nothing about it. We are going to do whatever we will, no matter how hard we try. Even though Billy knows his plane will crash, knows how he will die, knows so many things, he will not change them. We are destined to live our lives a certain way. They only difference between us and Billy is he knows how his life will turn out. Our lives will turn out how they will because we will always do the same thing, no matter the knowledge we have. I'm not sure I am making much sense, its late and I'm tired, but you get the picture. We are destined to live our lives how we will.

Slaughterhouse-Five: Vonnegut

"'If you protest, if you think death is a terrible thing, then you have not heard a word I have said.'" pg 142 It is moments like this that we see Vonnegut convey his own message through Billy. While it is based in fiction, I think Billy is very much like Vonnegut. Simply based on the book, we can see that the author is a very strange man, so it would not shock me that he has such beliefs. I'm not saying Vonnegut was abducted by aliens, that is just absurd. But I do think he is trying to tell us that death is not the end of our lives. We will get to look back at all the times in our lives, and reflect on both the good and bad. He sincerely believes death is not something that needs to be mourned. It simply happens to everyone, and we move on.

Slaughterhouse-Five: Time Travel

"I, Billy Pilgrim will die, have died, and always will die on February 13th, 1976." pg 141 First, I hate the new format. With that out of the way, I think the time-travel dynamic of this book is why it is so unemotional. Throughout reading it, I felt detached from Billy, and all the characters really. But now I see why; Billy is detached from himself. He knows when he is supposed to die. He has seen the events of his life played out over and over again. He has no emotions left to convey. He has become stale to even the most joyous moments in his life, so it is impossible for him to convey those feelings to us, the reader. I also think this allows him to give an uncompromised account of what actually happened to him. He is not blocked by feelings and does not twist events based on his emotions. It is just Billy's unbiased account of what really happened during his lifetime.

Slaughterhouse-Five: You Can't Spell Slaughter without Laughter!

"An American near Billy wailed that he had excreted everything but his brains. Moments later he said, 'There they go, there they go.' He meant his brains.
That was I. That was me. That was the author of this book."- Chapter 5, pg 125

I do not dislike this book by any means. I just feel there is no conflict, nothing that needs to be resolved. I am simply being told the events of a person's life. One thing I have enjoyed, though, is Vonnegut's humor. He is incredibly sarcastic, which I really enjoy. It is tough to find books that can be both serious and funny, and this is one of them. Vonnegut hits some key points, such as death and war and depression, while maintaining a humorous atmosphere in his story. I find myself literally laughing out loud during parts of this story, such as the scene from the quote I put. I find the humor similar to that in the movie Fight Club.

Slaughterhouse-Five: Frame Story

"Listen: Billy Pilgrim has come unstuck in time." Chapter 2 pg 23

This is the beginning of the frame story created by Vonnegut. The original book starts describing a character who was asked to write a war novel. The frame story is his tale of a man named Billy Pilgrim who was in WWII and saw the fire-bombing of Dresden. This adds an interesting aspect to the story because the information provided is not a first hand account. The reader has no way of knowing which parts are factual and what is made up. The parts about being abducted by aliens seems a little far fetched, and it is impossible to know if (within the confines of a fictional story) the character is telling the reader the truth. The frame story adds an element of skepticism, leaving the reader questioning the characters. This is good because it appears Vonnegut does not want us to connect with any of them.

Slaughterhouse-Five: War

"And even if the wars didn't keep coming like glaciers, there would still be plain old death."- Chapter 1 pg 4

Wars are like glaciers. I like this simile (nope, not a metaphor) because I find it to be the most accurate description of war. Glaciers are enormous, crush everything in their path, and leave nothing but desolation behind. Even if you try to stop a glacier, it will just keep slowly moving along. War is the same way; it leaves countries in shambles, wreaking havoc on everything it touches. It is an inevitable part of humanity. The narrator does not want to write about it, and Billy just wants to get out of it, but war overtakes them both. There is not a soul in the world that is not in some way affected by war. It drives Billy mad (I find it impossible Billy goes crazy due to his father dropping him in the pool). His entire life revolves around those days spent in Germany. Just like the glacier, war overtakes everything in its path.

Slaughterhouse-Five: Motifs

"Now, when I myself hear that somebody is dead, I simply shrug and say what the Tralfamadorians say about dead people, which is "So it goes."" Chapter 2 pg 27

These three little words carry so much meaning in this book. It is a saying to express the belief that life does not end at death. Everyone dies, we all know that. These three words just show it should not be a sad moment. We live on through the past, replaying our lives and never truly ending. The repetition of this line throughout the story continually reinforces this idea. Vonnegut pounds it into our minds and ensures it sticks out. The happiness we have in our lives will get to be replayed for us over and over, so dying is not a sorrowful event. It is simply something that happens, and should be treated as such. And so it goes.

Slaughterhouse-Five: Life

"I am a Tralfamadorian, seeing all time as you might see a stretch of the Rocky Mountains. All time is all time. It does not change. It does not lend itself to warnings or explanations. It simply is." Chapter 4 pg 85-86

What a concept that is. Vonnegut's Tralfamadorians see all time all at once. They know everything that has happened and will happen. At one point, they reveal they know how the universe will end. What is interesting is they can change none of it. All these things will happen no matter what, because they will let it. Imagine if this were true of humanity. Imagine if people did not live or die, just skipped around time seeing different parts. We would have such a different outlook on life, which is what Vonnegut is trying to show. Instead of focusing on all the negativity, war and violence, we would relish in the happy times we get to see. Of course there would still be sadness and anger, but we could know for sure that better times would soon come.

Terrible Endings

"He was soon borne away by the waves, and lost in darkness in the distance. " pg 166

This sounds like Shelley ran out of time for this little competition and made up am ending. There are far too many things still unsettled. What happens to the creature? Does Walton make it home safely? Does the crew still decide to mutiny later on? This ending is not sufficient for me. It reminds of the ending of the "Inheritance" trilogy. The author spent three books building a relationship between two characters, only to have one sail off without ever having kissed the girl, carrying a bunch of important dragon eggs, heading into unmapped territory, and never telling us what becomes of the dragons or other races. Both books feel incomplete to me, like there should be more to them. I don't like feeling as though anything could still happen. I dint want to use my imagination and think of my own ending, I want what the author envisioned.

Despair

"What became of me? I know not; I lost sensation and chains and darkness were the only objects that pressed upon me." Pg 147

One key point of this book is the effect of loneliness. Throught it, both Victor and the creature are sad and alone. Victor has refuge in his friends, family, and Elizabeth. The creature has no solace. Because of this, it goes on a murderous rampage so Victor can feel the same agony. Their despair drives them both crazy, and each wants to destroy the other. This despair also has a bit of the opposite effect on the two. At first, Victor's despair is what makes him not pursue the creature. He does not want the horror of facing it again. On the other side, it is what droves the creature to exact revnenge on Victor. It is so sad and lonely that it wants the cause to be just as miserable as it is.

Nature vs Nurture

"I could have torn him limb from limb, as the loon rends the antelope. But my heart sunk within as with bitter sickness, and I refrained." Pg 97

What taught the creature to show such restraint? This could have been programmed into its brain from whatever person the mind previously belonged to. Victor may have wired the creautre to show benevolence, which was later ruined by its circumstances. The nature argument would say these things, claiming the creature knew nothing different because it was hardwired to act that way. Nurture theorists assume it learned from watching the family. They could have held back their anger, and the creauture saw that and did the same. It is unclear which side wins this fight, but whichever it wait the creature does eventually learn hate from it. Whether from rejection or Victor's subconscious, the creature begins murdering people for hatred of Victor. We may never know the true cause of the creature's corruption.

For Being a Scientist, Victor is awfully Stupid

"I will be with you on your wedding night." Pg 139

When the creature speaks this line, he believes the creature wants to kill him. He never bothers to consider the trend the creature has taken. Instead of taking Victor's life as revenge, the creature has been killing his family members. He never stops to think maybe Elizabeth could be in danger. Imstead, he focuses only on himself. He leaves Elizabeth alone in the house, and she ends up dead. Also, why did Victor never consider maybe an 8 foot tall super human could be dangerous? Instead of ending the life of the creature as soon as he made it, he just runs off and lets it escape. When he encounters the creature again, he tries to threaten it. The creature is several feet taller, probably hundreds of pounds heavier, obviously stronger, and possesses supior reflexes and skills. Victor stands no chance, and is lucky the monster doesn't tear him to pieces as soon as it layer eyes on him.

I Knew I Forgot Something...

"A fiend snatched from me every hope of future happiness; no creature had ever been so miserable as I was; so frightful an event is single in the history of man." Pg 146

It is at this point in the story we see Victor and the monster are essentially the same. Physical appearance aside, the creature and Victor are in the same emotional state. They are driven by loneliness and despair, wanting only to ruin the life of the other. Victor took away any chance and the creature gaining a true friend, so the creature took away Victor's true love. Victor then becomes obsessed with pursuing the creature and exacting revenge. Creator and product essentially model each other by the end of the story. I think the creature turned out evil and outcast because those are traits that were hiding in Victor all along. He subconsciously made the creature a tall, ugly form of himself. It is no coincindence the creature is fixated on revenge; Victor is the same way when it really comes down to him.

Why the Terrible Movies?

"It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open; it breathed hard, and a convulsive motion agitated its limbs." pg 35

No lightning, no crashes, no moaning creature, no "ITS ALIIIIIIIIIVE!!!!!". Come on man, I was excited for that! This has got to be the most undramatic moster-comes-to-life scene ever. However undramatic it may be, I think the immediate fear of Dr. Frankenstein is the truly frightening part. All the flashing lights and yelling in the movies made me think Frankenstein was evil and created a terrible monster on purpose. I think the actual book version is more frightening though. Frankenstein done goofed, and he knows it. He is so terrified of his own monster, he won't even chase after it when it runs from him. He should know this creature literally inside and out, but he sees something in it to be terrified of, and so should everyone else. I do not understand why movies have adapted it to make both of them seem like terrible things, when in reality Frankenstein meant no harm and the creature's evil is only a product of its environment.

Frankenstein is a Jerk

"'Devil,' I exclaimed, 'do you dare approach me? and do not you fear the fierce vengeance of my arm wreaked on your miserable head?'" pg 68

I know I already touched on this a bit in an earlier blog, but Frankenstein has no reason to really be afraid of this monster. My feelings are conflicted because of the information Shelley has provided, but Frankenstein knows this information only from hindsight, and when he creates the monster and meets it again, he has no reasons to fear it. Let's assume he does not have knowledge of the creature that he has failed to share so far. If that is the case, he should have nothing to fear, but still does. Considering he is a scientist, he should be incredibly curious as to how the creature managed to develop language, walk, think, and separate its senses in just a couple years. It takes people much, much longer to speak and think the way the creature can. Instead of following through with his study and being a respectable scientist and human being, Frankenstein threaten to kill his own creation. He has completely refused to give the creature a fair chance and give it the respect it deserves.

Setting Sets the Scene

"Soon after I entered the valley of Chamounix. This valley is more wonderful and sublime, but not so beautiful and picturesque, as that of Servox, through which I had just passed." pg 65

Although this particular excerpt is not from the beginning of a section, most chapters and important scenes begin with such descriptions. In this case, the scenery around Frankenstein fills him with renewed spirit and sucks the melancholy out. The creature's first memories are of the forest around him and what it was like. Shelley uses the setting as one of her major story-telling elements. It seems there is always a dramatic scene around the characters, or at least crucial to the story, such as when the creature is watching the family in the cabin. I can honestly say I have never seen such dedication to scenery in a book, aside from maybe Harry Potter. Even specific dates and seasons are mentioned, when many books simply overlook such details in favor of characterization. Shelley has managed to cover both without writing an overly-detailed and dry story.

Characterizing Creatures

"It is with considerable difficulty that I remember the original era of my being: all the events of that period appear confused and indistinct." pg 70

It is unclear how Shelley is trying to portray the creature created by Dr. Frankenstein. The creature speaks eloquently and does not harm anyone in the scenes we have been presented so far, which makes me personally feel sorry for it. However, Dr. Frankenstein seems quite afraid of it, which may mean he has some knowledge he is not disclosing, or simply has an unwarranted fear. Also, the monster hints that it has committed terrible acts and has reasons to be both hated by humanity and to hate humanity. I feel lost as to what emotions I should have towards it. The opening scene does not help at all. The monster could be running away in fear of Frankenstein, running to harm or destroy something, or attempting to run to isolation in shame of what it has done. I really hope some questions get answered soon!

The "Inception" of Books

"But I consented to listen, and seating myself by the fire which my odious companion had lighted, he thus began his tale." pg 70

A story in a story in a story, probably in another story. Honestly, I'm not that lost in these frame stories, but sometimes I do forget who the narrator is. While it is a good way to convey the tales of Frankenstein and his creature, it can get a bit confusing. Often I do not even remember Frankenstein is telling his tale to Robert Walton, who begins this story. Essentially, the entire book is the 5th letter to his sister. Walton is transcribing the story Frankenstein told him, while Frankenstein tells the story his creature told him. Unless Frankenstein and Walton both have super-human memories, I see an issue with all this re-telling. The thing bugging me the most is that nobody can recall conversations like these two seem to be able to. There must be misconstrued facts or parts left out, and I wonder what this tale would be like if we heard straight from the source, the creature.

my oblogatory kindle-blog

"What I mean is, we come from people with a lot of pride" Walter

I believe this is the turning point for Walter, who ends up being, in my opinion, the most dynamic character of the play. Through most of the play, he is focused on money and making a name for himself. By the final scene, he has lost all his money and most of his family hates him. He is given the chance to get some money back, and Walter makes a drastic change. Instead of taking tbr money, he does what he knows his family wants. He decides to still move to the house they put the down payment on. I was shocked because I.figured he would take the money. All his previous actions showed he would, which leaves me to wonder what caused this change. Nobody from his family speaks up to him and tells him to take the house, so it was a decision made on his own. I think he may have finally seen that his family has more value than any amount of money.

Bomb Hills, Not Houses

"Set off another bomb yesterday." Walter, I.i

This play was first performed in 1959, which was a controversial time for African Americans. It was just before the spark of the civil rights movement, and they were still segregated from whites, which is what makes this play so radical. It has an all-African American cast, which likely deterred some people from going to see it. All the characters have huge dreams, most of which defy the stereotypes that had been set for African Americans, and for that matter the sexes. Beneatha wants to be a doctor, which was radical for a woman, let alone and African woman. This was a time when people were actually bombing houses of African Americans who were living in white neighborhoods, and Hansberry has this family moving to one. I believe this play became a classic because it was so revolutionary for the time period. I'd be willing to bet nobody actually touched this subject before the civil rights movement.

BTW the title for this comes from a longboard company slogan. they don't literally bomb hills. This is what bombing a hill is

Assimilation Nation

"Ah- Oh-pay-gay-day, oh-gbah-mu-shay. (A Yoruba exclamation for admiration)"-- Asagai, I.ii

The two most foiled characters in this play are Joseph Asagai and George Murchison. Asagai is straight from Africa, and is retaining that culture even in America. He brings Beneatha a set of robes from his tribe to wear. On the contrary, George is trying to assimilate into white culture. He is rich, and he brings Beneatha to nice places, pays for her dinner, and is all around proper. Beneatha is caught between the two, facing to the choice to assimilate or retain her heritage, and her conflict bleeds out to the rest of the family. Mama and Walter are both trying to assimilate. Mama wants to move into a white neighborhood and Walter wants to be a big business man just like the white people. This is one of the central points of the play, and it is ironic that the two foil characters are both trying to get the same girl.

Get to the Point

"Ida Scott? This is Amanda Wingfield! We missed you at D.A.R. last Monday!"-- Amanda, Scene 3

You may be wondering why I used this quote. I don't even know why. Just like I don't know why the first 5 scenes are even in this play. At least the first 4 seems completely unnecessary, and the only thing that happens in 5 is we learn the name of Laura's caller. The first 4 scenes are spent watching this dysfunctional family fight over stupid and petty things. Tom doesn't want to eat properly or comb his hair and stay out too late. He seems to cause most of the problems, but only because Laura is too quiet to contribute to many issues. The whole time I was wondering what the actual conflict of this play was, and all the fighting turned out to have nothing to do with the eventual conflict and resolution. I felt like I was being dragged through a bad reality show where in the end we find out it was all a joke and nobody actually wins anything.

Narrators in plays are ANNOYING

"TOM (to the audience). Across the alley from us was the Paradise Dance Hall"-- Scene 5

I know narrators can be necessary, but I can't stand them. I feel it breaks up the flow of the play and does not provide any information that some stage direction couldn't. It is obvious Williams has no issue with writing huge paragraphs of stage direction that are very detailed, so why do we need a character to tell us things instead? It is unrealistic, and I know it is supposed to be. I do not take issue with other unrealistic parts of the play, such as not hearing all the conversations going on. I just prefer not to have the characters aware they are part of a production. For me, it distracts from what is going on in the play, and I always wonder what the case might be if the character(s) did not know they were being watched?

St-st-st-stutter!

"I know your ambitions do not lie in the warehouse, that like everybody in the whole wide world-you've had to-make sacrifices, but-Tom-Tom-life's not easy, it calls for-Spartan endurance!"-- Amanda, Scene 4

This play has very realistic speech in it. There are stage directions for how each character is speaking, whether softly, pausing, loudly, or nervous. The style it is written also accounts for this. In the section I quoted, Amanda is out of breath with excitement. The style forces the actor to take pauses and breaths between some of the words, adding to the realistic effect for the audience. The dialogue also has sections where multiple characters speak at once, and it is easy to envision the situation. I liked this because it makes the play readable, not just meant to be seen as some plays are written. Williams also uses italics throughout to emphasize words the actors would put stress on. I found it easy and enjoyable to read, not struggling to envision what would be happening on stage.

A Happy Ending?

"Everyone dances" --stage direction, end of act V

This is a Shakespeare play, right? I wasn't sure he knew what a happy ending was. To be honest, I was kind if disappointed by it. I mean, I do like happy endings, but this Shakespeare. I'm used to people being stabbed, screams, murder, suicide, not dancing and weddings. I can't say I was shocked, because the whole play is whimsical with few serious moments. It certainly wasn't a bad ending, I just would have preferred a bit of violence. There were a few twists; Duke Ferdinand stepping down out of nowhere was quite shocking, although it felt a little out of place. A good portion of the play discusses how much better the country is than the royal life, but at the end they get the royal life back and seem pretty joyous about it. As a whole, I enjoyed this play. Pretty easy for a Shakespeare, straightforward, and lots of cross dressing.

P.S. I wrote these last two blogs from my kindle while laying in bed, and I can't decide if that's lazy or awesome.

P.P.S this is what I envision them dancing to. http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=B-nVfx7Rvrc amazing video too. I hope it works

life to death

"At first an infant, mewling and puling in the nurse's arms.... last scene of all, that ends this strange eventful history, is second childishness and mere oblivion..." II.vii.146-167

This is a very insightful speech we get from Jaques. He is speaking about the life cycle pf men. They begin as infants, move on through adulthood, and then revert back to an infant-like state. I am not sure if this is the first reference to such growth and decay, but I know it is also a riddle. What begins on for legs, walks on two, and ends on four legs? In this case, the four legs are a walker for the elderly person, but it is the same concept. It is scary to think about, but bthe time we grow old, we are just as helpless as when we are born. Nobody desires to be old and helpless, but it is an inevitable part of life. In such a silly and laid back play, this is and interesting and thought-provoking section.

The Joys of Nature

"Hath not old custom made this life more sweet Than that of painted pomp?"-- II.i.2-3

The difference between the royal life and that of the country is a key theme in this Shakespeare play. Duke Senior, as well as most of the characters, really enjoy their new environment. They find it a nice escape from the "pomp" of the courts. It seems the only character who really dislikes the woods is Touchstone. He thinks it is dirty and unrefined, even going so far as to call it sinful. He speaks to Corin about how the shepherd is going to hell because he has no class or manners. I believe all the other characters enjoy their new life. Shakespeare is trying to show that their society is focusing too much on manners and what is polite. People need to just enjoy themselves and live happy lives, not worry about being refined and stately.

Reflective Essay #2 (the important one)

Love is a tricky thing. People easily and readily become smitten. In Shakespeare’s Othello, Desdemona and Othello are madly in love with each other. So in love, in fact, that Othello cannot stand the thought of Desdemona cheating on him. This type of instant infatuation is not uncommon throughout history in literature and entertainment. In Tony Dungy’s book, Quiet Strength, he describes meeting his wife Lauren as being “stunned” (60)

. This topic is covered by nearly everyone, not just high profile celebrities. A relatively low-key band called “A Skylit Drive” has a song titled “I’m a Thief, Not a Treasure Hunter” that discusses the lead singer’s love for an anonymous young woman. Devout love is timeless theme, used not only by Shakespeare, but countless others throughout the years.
It is clear by act 1 that Othello and Desdemona are truly in love with one another. In a time when women were rarely given a voice, Desdemona speaks up, saying “My heart’s subdued even to the very quality of my lord. I saw Othello’s visage in his mind, and to his honors and his valiant parts did I my soul and fortunes consecrate” (I.iii.246-251) She feels attached to him; she is almost part of him. She knows him and loves him and is not afraid to say it. In a similar way, Coach Dungy quickly becomes infatuated with his future wife, Lauren. “In the past, whenever I had met a girl, I immediately began to think about how I was going to tell her that I wasn’t interested in getting serious. With Lauren, however, I was trying to figure out a way to see her again” (Dungy, 61). The love between Othello and Desdemona is not an exclusive situation; it has been repeated over and over by countless others.
Although not quite as important, there is a visual aspect to love, or at least infatuation. This is not to be discounted, as Shakespeare shows. Even Cassio, who knows Desdemona is married, cannot resist describing her beauty, proclaiming “That paragons description and wild fame, one that excels the quirks of blazoning pens and in the essential vesture of creation does tire the ingener” (II.i.62-64). Her beauty cannot even be described in writing, she is just too gorgeous. Even the most humble and open-minded people likely base initial attraction on what a person looks like. It is not being shallow, just simple human nature. Physical attraction is where infatuation begins. Song after song is written about beautiful women and handsome men, but “I’m a Thief, Not a Treasure Hunter” by “A Skylit Drive” (here's the official video!) has several lines that really stand out to me. “Your words are infectious/ Your eyes leave me breathless/ I think it’s safe to say, you’re deadly in your own way” (Jagmin). This woman’s looks are “deadly”, which is a rather bold statement. While not literally being deadly, Jag is saying is that she stops his heart with shock at how gorgeous she is.
Shakespeare is one of the greatest authors to ever live, writing about themes that defy the ages. Love is one of the most prevalent themes both then and now. Ever since people had the concept of love and the ability to write, it has played a part in almost every form of media, from books to music to art. Even the stone-faced and quiet Tony Dungy is affected by its power, as are many musical artists. Love never dies between people, and it will never die in entertainment.


Perrine, Lawrence. “Othello.” Perrine’s Literature: Structures, Sounds, and Sense. Fort Worth. Harcourt College. 2002. 1361-1462. Print.

Jagmin, Michael. "I'm Not a Thief, I'm a Treasure Hunter." Rec. 2008. Wires... And the Concept of Breathing. A Skylit Drive. Cameron Webb, 2008. CD.

Dungy, Tony, and Nathan Whitaker. Quiet Strength. Prince Fredrick, MD: Recorded, 2008. Print.

here are the lyrics to the song as well

Turn Your Volume Down

"It comes back full circle. I cannot help but care no more. Is this it, is this how it goes?"

I think this song reflects the feelings Othello has by the end of the play. He kills Desdemona, leaving him with nothing to care about any more and bringing death full circle. In the opening verse of Mammoth by The Devil Wears Prada, it proclaims, "I never meant to hurt anyone" which I believe is true for Othello. He was a leader and only wanted peace, but his jealousy brought anger and rage to him. I feel the very first line of the song shows why Othello kills himself in the first place. Not only is he upset over the death of Desdemona, but he does not want to commit any more heinous actions. He was formerly a good man who ends up murdering his wife, and he does not want it to ruin him and make him even worse. The style of the song (rough screams to smooth singing) also portrays the confusion and anger in Othello's mind.

lyrics

video

My General Thoughts

"Demand me nothing. What you know, you know./ From this time forth I never will speak word."-- V.ii.316-317

First, wow, what an ending. Who thought everyone would die?!? *coughsarcasmcough* It was pretty obvious this would be a typical Shakespeare ending. The only question would be how everyone would go out. Obviously someone had to kill themselves to be in true Shakespeare fashion. I discovered a plot hole: since Desdemona claims to have killed herself, why doesn't Emelia immediately question the lack of wounds. People can't strangle themselves to death without hanging or drowning, and it was obvious she did none of those. So there, Shakespeare isn't perfect. Part of me wishes Iago died, but then part of me is glad he didn't. It is good he lived because now he has to live with the torment of knowing he failed in his grand master plan. But why does poor Emelia have to die? She was barely a part of the story, but still gets killed of, while Cassio, who was supposed to die in the first place, is just a little scratched up?!?

Dynamo

"Thou hast not half that power to do me harm/ As I have to be hurt."-- V.ii.174-175

Well look at Emelia, standing up for herself. This is a radical change from the start of the story. At the beginning, Emelia is timid and submissive to Iago and very short-spoken. By this scene, however, she has undergone a radical change. She is essentially shouting at Othello who is threatening to kill her. This change marks her as a dynamic character. After having played such a small role in the rest of the play, this scene was unexpected. She brings together all the characters and begins the process that ends in the death of, well pretty much everyone but Cassio and Iago. I think Shakespeare had Emelia change so drastically to be controversial. Women did not behave or talk to men like she does in this part of the play, so I am sure it caused quite a stir in his day.

You Can't Handle the Truth!

"O brave Iago, honest and just, / That hast such noble sense of thy friend's wrong! / Thou teachest me"-- V.i.31-33

Throughout the entire play, Iago is referred to as an honest man. Everyone thinks he has the best intentions at heart and is steering everyone in the right direction, when in fact he is not. Iago is anything but honest. This epithet is wrongly given, for he misleads and manipulates almost every character in this play at some point in time. He is the mastermind behind everything that goes wrong. Each death is almost directly related to Iago. The craziest part is that by the end, Iago is happy with how everything turned out. He refuses to tell Othello why he did what he did, leaving the motives open for interpretation. I believe by the end, he simply wanted to see Othello fall and all the turmoil he could create.

Racism and Sexism!

"Because we come to do you service and you think we are ruffians, you'll have your daughter covered with a Barbary horse, you'll have your nephews neigh to you, you'll have coursers for cousins, and jennets for germans."-- Iago, I.i.109-111

This statement is basically calling Othello a horse because he is black. The racism and sexism in this play are incredibly prevalent. Iago insults women left and right, even his own wife. The only perfect woman for him is one that stays in the kitchen and raises the kids. I am not sure, but it seems as though Shakespeare was trying to address and issue in his own society. The villain is the most racist and sexist in this play, and it seems the hope is to make people dislike him. Also, why do all the male names end in O and female names in A? I am sure there was a much wider variety of names for women back then, so why did Shakespeare end all their names the same way?

Stage Direction and Asides

"He takes her by the palm. Aye, well said, whisper. With as little a web as this will I ensnare as great a fly as Cassio."-- Iago, II.i. 165-166

Stage directions and asides give plays a new dimension when reading them. Instead of having a narrator to explain things, we must have characters directly tell us what they are doing or thinking. Stage directions often provide a visual image of what is happening, even though they are rare. Asides are especially helpful. It allows the reader insight into the mind of a character, while no other person on stage knows what they are saying. Particularly with Iago, this allows us to see what he is plotting against Cassio and Othello. Without these elements, reading a play would be dry and difficult to analyze.

Back to the Blogs- Shakespeare!

"I hate the Moor, and it is thought abroad that 'twixt my sheets he's done my office."-- Iago, I.i.366-367

Oh blogs, how I have missed you. Straight to the point, this famous soliloquy shows us the truth behind Iago's motives. Not only does he hate that Cassio is the lieutenant, but there is a rumor that Othello has slept with his wife. To solve his problems, Iago intends to make it seem like Cassio is sleeping with Othello's wife. It is all just one big confusing love triangle, typical Shakespeare. Iago is a very cunning character, and it strikes me as odd that he is currently the centerpiece of the story instead of Othello. The Moor actually seems to play little part in this other than being the bane of Iago. Shakespeare has a knack for developing twists in stories, so I am interested to see what Iago actually does.