For the majority of my blog posts so far, I have just essentially been discussing the various pieces that we've read in this class, but for this post, I definitely wanted to bring out some outside readings that I've done and relate them back to the class. The issue of incest was brought about when we read Hamlet, but by today's standards, a widow marrying her husband's brother would not exactly qualify as incest, since there really is no blood relation. It may be a little weird, but in my opinion, it is completely acceptable.
I do feel like the issue of incest is one of the most common taboos across the board. It is dismissed in pretty much every culture and never exactly addressed by the media either. Honestly, the only other book I've read that had to with incest was the 1979 cult classic Flowers in the Attic by V.C. Andrews, and I decided that this would be the perfect opportunity to discuss that work, seeing as it deals with incest which was also discussed in Hamlet, and that I also have been revisiting the work for the past couple weeks, seeing as it was just remade into a made-for-TV movie. If people have never heard of this story, it is essentially about a widowed mother named Corinne who had married her half-brother, who locks in her four children up into an attic with the intent of killing them off in order to gain her wealthy father's inheritance. The grandfather, who is a religious zealot, believes that since the four children were products of incest, that they need to be eliminated, he seems them as an abomination. In addition to this, the two eldest children, Cathy and Chris, begin a sexual relationship while being locked away for the three years in which Corinne slowly poisons the four children by feeding them doughnuts that are lightly laced with arsenic, unbeknownst to the children (the children think they are simply being locked away until the grandfather himself dies). It really is one of my favorite books ever, VC Andrews in my opinion is essentially the theoretical lovechild of Jane Austen and Edgar Allen Poe.
My mother, who read the book herself, was shocked to learn that I read it as well. She didn't necessarily approve. I was only in junior high when I read it for the first time, and she felt I wasn't mature enough to be reading about things like incest.
So the two stories in which I've encountered incest both share a common theme: that is an abomination worthy of death. But why is this? Why is this such a taboo? I took an Anthropology class in the spring term of my freshman year and we talked extensively about the issue. One of the most common issues why incest is such a taboo is because of the biological deficiencies of future children, but we learned that such defects do not even start to relatively show up until after generations and generations and generations of incestuous offspring. One explanation that was simply a theory is that we're genetically wired at birth to not be attracted to members of our own family. And one of the most reasonable explanations is that in ancient civilizations, children were encouraged to marry outside their family to extend the family, and therefore forge a bond that could open up trade possibilities and well as sharing wealth.
After reading all the reasons why the incest taboo has become such a cultural norm everywhere, it does seem like they were foolish reasons. Back when the world was dependent on religion, they thought that just because the Bible felt that children who were the products of incest would be biologically deficient, having devils hooves, etc. that it would actually happen, and in terms of the marrying outside your family thing, the decision to make incest so forbidden was simply to drive the increase of a family's wealth, almost entirely commercial. But even with all those explanations, incest still just seems so weird to me, and that's just because we learn from an early age that it just does not happen at all in normal life, it is an accepted fact that no one even needs to question.
I guess where your opinions lie on the matter is what you think qualifies as incest? I do think there's some sort of law that forbids you from marrying anyone who is your 2nd cousin or closer, but 3rd cousins and so on is fair game. But like I said before in a previous blog post, I have a huge family that is incredibly close, and I know people like my 3rd and 4th cousins and even though it would be "culturally and legally" acceptable for me to marry them, there's still part of me that is just seriously repulsed by that idea. And then there's the "6 degrees of separation" theory, if you go back far enough, you can probably find out that you're related to just about anybody in the world. Does that not qualify as incest as well? FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt, one of the most beloved President and First Lady ever, were third/fourth cousins (can't really remember to be honest).
I.... honestly did not realize how long this blog ended up being, I didn't mean to ramble. But the too long, didn't read version: The issue of incest is obviously completely taboo to everyone everywhere, to the point where it is virtually discussed nowhere, and when it is, those guilty of it has to be punished by death.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
A Good Man is Hard to Find
This short story was... interesting. I honestly say that with hesitation because I'm not really comfortable with calling it "good", just because even though the ending was expected, I did feel bad about everything that happened throughout the course of the short story. I think one thing that fascinated me about this story was that in class the next day it seemed like literally everyone was eager to throw the grandmother under the bus, but for me, I just couldn't help but feel bad for her the entire time.
Maybe it's just because I'm biased. I'm fortunate enough to have a seriously amazing family. We're all so close, and there's a lot of us. I consider myself just as close to my second cousins as I do my first. And my maternal grandma really is the driving force between all the family reunions, pasta dinners on Sundays, and really getting everyone into the holiday spirit. We all respect her. My other grandmother however, the one on my dad's side, I feel like she could relate to the grandmother in this story. I will be brutally honest and say that my paternal grandmother doesn't really have as much footing when it comes to family dynamics as my maternal one. However, she is southern, and she really is well-intentioned, and I've just come to respect my elders no matter what. Even she seems out of place when you look at the rest of my family, I come from a largely Italian background, everyone else in my family was born and raised in my hometown and our roots are here, whereas my grandmother was born in Kentucky before moving up north a little bit. Unfortunately, part of her just didn't "fit in" with the rest of us. I hate to go off on a tangent about family life, but it gives you some context into my analysis of "A Good Man is Hard to Find".
Anyways, what I'm trying to get at is that I don't really understand why it felt like no one else in the class really felt any sympathy for the grandmother in "A Good Man is Hard To Find". It seems like the children treat the grandmother as a joke, her own kid doesn't seem to take her seriously, I just feel bad for her. I do agree that she kind of makes some poor decisions in the story but at least her intentions are there? Her grandchildren seem bored of her most of the time, and she just wanted to do something that would excite them, while in turn raising her stock with her grandkids, and that maybe she is a "cool grandma". It does seem like the grandmother knows what she's talking about, I find it hard to believe that she would lie to them for no reason and in turn delay the trip, which seemed hellish enough to her already. She simply made a mistake with the state the mansion was in. No one is perfect, so I just found it a little sad how everyone was so quick to judge the grandmother, but the character in the story as well as the other people in class?
I suppose the death of the entire family has to blamed on someone, but I just don't think you can put the responsibility solely on the grandmother. The first line even says it, she didn't want to go to Florida in the first place, she knew there was the Misfit running around. Sure, she was the one who led them on the broken path, but she wouldn't have even suggested it had her son and her grandkids put in more of an effort with her throughout the trip. I know a lot of people feel that even when the car crashes, they still could have all made it out alive even when the Misfit does show up, and that the grandmother trying to get through to the Misfit was what ultimately sealed their fate, but I disagree. Sure, the grandmother forcing "the power of Jesus" or whatever onto the Misfit in that situation certainly didn't help matters, but it didn't make them matters worse in my opinion either. In my opinion, the family was as good as dead once Misfit and his lackeys step out of the car, nothing can possibly be said or done to save the family at that point. The grandmother just tried to throw a Hail Mary, a last-ditch effort to absolve the situation but it ultimately failed. At least she tried. Her intentions were there.
Maybe it's just because I'm biased. I'm fortunate enough to have a seriously amazing family. We're all so close, and there's a lot of us. I consider myself just as close to my second cousins as I do my first. And my maternal grandma really is the driving force between all the family reunions, pasta dinners on Sundays, and really getting everyone into the holiday spirit. We all respect her. My other grandmother however, the one on my dad's side, I feel like she could relate to the grandmother in this story. I will be brutally honest and say that my paternal grandmother doesn't really have as much footing when it comes to family dynamics as my maternal one. However, she is southern, and she really is well-intentioned, and I've just come to respect my elders no matter what. Even she seems out of place when you look at the rest of my family, I come from a largely Italian background, everyone else in my family was born and raised in my hometown and our roots are here, whereas my grandmother was born in Kentucky before moving up north a little bit. Unfortunately, part of her just didn't "fit in" with the rest of us. I hate to go off on a tangent about family life, but it gives you some context into my analysis of "A Good Man is Hard to Find".
Anyways, what I'm trying to get at is that I don't really understand why it felt like no one else in the class really felt any sympathy for the grandmother in "A Good Man is Hard To Find". It seems like the children treat the grandmother as a joke, her own kid doesn't seem to take her seriously, I just feel bad for her. I do agree that she kind of makes some poor decisions in the story but at least her intentions are there? Her grandchildren seem bored of her most of the time, and she just wanted to do something that would excite them, while in turn raising her stock with her grandkids, and that maybe she is a "cool grandma". It does seem like the grandmother knows what she's talking about, I find it hard to believe that she would lie to them for no reason and in turn delay the trip, which seemed hellish enough to her already. She simply made a mistake with the state the mansion was in. No one is perfect, so I just found it a little sad how everyone was so quick to judge the grandmother, but the character in the story as well as the other people in class?
I suppose the death of the entire family has to blamed on someone, but I just don't think you can put the responsibility solely on the grandmother. The first line even says it, she didn't want to go to Florida in the first place, she knew there was the Misfit running around. Sure, she was the one who led them on the broken path, but she wouldn't have even suggested it had her son and her grandkids put in more of an effort with her throughout the trip. I know a lot of people feel that even when the car crashes, they still could have all made it out alive even when the Misfit does show up, and that the grandmother trying to get through to the Misfit was what ultimately sealed their fate, but I disagree. Sure, the grandmother forcing "the power of Jesus" or whatever onto the Misfit in that situation certainly didn't help matters, but it didn't make them matters worse in my opinion either. In my opinion, the family was as good as dead once Misfit and his lackeys step out of the car, nothing can possibly be said or done to save the family at that point. The grandmother just tried to throw a Hail Mary, a last-ditch effort to absolve the situation but it ultimately failed. At least she tried. Her intentions were there.
Hamlet and Criticism of Hamlet
Throughout the course of my academic career, I have been so stranger to William Shakespeare. In high school, I remember we read many of his sonnets, as well as Romeo and Juliet, Othello, and The Taming of the Shrew. In college, I read Macbeth in Western Classics and Twelfth Night in Theatre Appreciation. It seems silly to have already read all that Shakespeare yet throughout my entire academic career from high school to my sophomore year of college, I never even considering picking up Hamlet, which is one of his most famous works and apparently, in terms of quality, Shakespeare's greatest masterpiece. I didn't particular enjoy it any more than I enjoyed some of Shakespeare's other plays, but I thought maybe this was because I just had too high of expectations for it, or that perhaps I am just not "cultured" enough to truly appreciate Hamlet.
However, I was relieved when I came into class the following day to realize that other people had the same grievances with the work as I did. I honestly did not like the character of Hamlet, but I overall just hated him. For example, I'm not a huge fan of Mercutio "as a person" in Romeo and Juliet, but I still found him an incredibly interesting character and a fun one to read about. He was a character that I loved to hate. Hamlet to me just seemed whiny and passive, and honestly, even his incredible complexity wouldn't redeem that for me. In terms of the play itself, I just had no emotional attachment to it. Sure, it was littered with death, but it didn't strike a chord with me in any way, which is definitely not the case for me when I have read other pieces by Shakespeare. For example, in addition to reading Romeo and Juliet, I also saw a production of it, as well as having seen a couple of movie adaptations of it, and every time I get to the end, I always wanna just scream at Romeo, "DON'T DRINK THE POISON, SHE'S STILL ALIVE!" and we're ultimately left feeling very depressed that Romeo and Juliet's romance was just not meant to be. I thought that Macbeth's downward spiral, brought about by his own hubris, was fascinating to read. I honestly felt terrible for Desdemona when Othello kills her and I was left in a state of shock.
However, when I read Hamlet, it just didn't have the same emotional impact for me. I mean, I did feel like the King's death was a long time coming, and I was pleased that Hamlet finally sealed the deal, but when he dies and doesn't really receive a happy ending, I am just happy this his whole ordeal is over, it didn't really matter much to me whether he lived or died. Gertrude and Ophelia didn't really do a whole lot for me either, they paled in comparison to other female Shakespeare characters like Desdemona, Katherina, and Lady Macbeth, who is my favorite Shakespeare character ever, male or female. In fact, the death that registered the most emotion for me was the deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who were ironically exceedingly irrelevant to the story to begin with, and even at that, they weren't even tragic deaths, it was comedic for me in a way.
Overall, I was pleased that T.S. Eliot brought up a lot of points about Hamlet that quite frankly needed to be addressed that other people seemed to afraid to say, and I do feel a little more validated and more comfortable to express my own opinions about Hamlet after reading the article. But even then, I didn't really like the article that much. For me, it seems like Eliot really hated Hamlet, and I don't get me wrong, I don't hate Hamlet. I may not have entirely liked it, but I can totally 100% understand why other people do. It's just not my taste. Trying to compare Shakespeare plays are really like comparing apples and oranges in a sense. They're all good, and Shakespeare really has a way with his words, but at the end of the day, they're really different and everyone should be allowed to have their own opinions.
I mean, my favorite Shakespeare play is The Taming of the Shrew, which is a little embarrassing to admit for me just because no one I know has ever really said that that one was their favorite as well, but I just liked it. The pacing was good, the characters were interesting, and it was funny. That might be an unpopular opinion but I'm sticking by it. Maybe I just have bad taste when it comes to Shakespeare, but I feel like I have read enough of him to form opinions about his works as a whole.
P.S.
When doing this post I found a very funny/interesting article "What Your Favorite Shakespeare Play Says About You". I would encourage you to see where you fall.
http://flavorwire.com/394825/what-your-favorite-shakespeare-play-says-about-you
However, I was relieved when I came into class the following day to realize that other people had the same grievances with the work as I did. I honestly did not like the character of Hamlet, but I overall just hated him. For example, I'm not a huge fan of Mercutio "as a person" in Romeo and Juliet, but I still found him an incredibly interesting character and a fun one to read about. He was a character that I loved to hate. Hamlet to me just seemed whiny and passive, and honestly, even his incredible complexity wouldn't redeem that for me. In terms of the play itself, I just had no emotional attachment to it. Sure, it was littered with death, but it didn't strike a chord with me in any way, which is definitely not the case for me when I have read other pieces by Shakespeare. For example, in addition to reading Romeo and Juliet, I also saw a production of it, as well as having seen a couple of movie adaptations of it, and every time I get to the end, I always wanna just scream at Romeo, "DON'T DRINK THE POISON, SHE'S STILL ALIVE!" and we're ultimately left feeling very depressed that Romeo and Juliet's romance was just not meant to be. I thought that Macbeth's downward spiral, brought about by his own hubris, was fascinating to read. I honestly felt terrible for Desdemona when Othello kills her and I was left in a state of shock.
However, when I read Hamlet, it just didn't have the same emotional impact for me. I mean, I did feel like the King's death was a long time coming, and I was pleased that Hamlet finally sealed the deal, but when he dies and doesn't really receive a happy ending, I am just happy this his whole ordeal is over, it didn't really matter much to me whether he lived or died. Gertrude and Ophelia didn't really do a whole lot for me either, they paled in comparison to other female Shakespeare characters like Desdemona, Katherina, and Lady Macbeth, who is my favorite Shakespeare character ever, male or female. In fact, the death that registered the most emotion for me was the deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who were ironically exceedingly irrelevant to the story to begin with, and even at that, they weren't even tragic deaths, it was comedic for me in a way.
Overall, I was pleased that T.S. Eliot brought up a lot of points about Hamlet that quite frankly needed to be addressed that other people seemed to afraid to say, and I do feel a little more validated and more comfortable to express my own opinions about Hamlet after reading the article. But even then, I didn't really like the article that much. For me, it seems like Eliot really hated Hamlet, and I don't get me wrong, I don't hate Hamlet. I may not have entirely liked it, but I can totally 100% understand why other people do. It's just not my taste. Trying to compare Shakespeare plays are really like comparing apples and oranges in a sense. They're all good, and Shakespeare really has a way with his words, but at the end of the day, they're really different and everyone should be allowed to have their own opinions.
I mean, my favorite Shakespeare play is The Taming of the Shrew, which is a little embarrassing to admit for me just because no one I know has ever really said that that one was their favorite as well, but I just liked it. The pacing was good, the characters were interesting, and it was funny. That might be an unpopular opinion but I'm sticking by it. Maybe I just have bad taste when it comes to Shakespeare, but I feel like I have read enough of him to form opinions about his works as a whole.
P.S.
When doing this post I found a very funny/interesting article "What Your Favorite Shakespeare Play Says About You". I would encourage you to see where you fall.
http://flavorwire.com/394825/what-your-favorite-shakespeare-play-says-about-you
Recitatif
"Recitatif" by Toni Morrison was probably one of my favorite reading assignments to date. I thought it was the perfect length, and overall it was very interesting, thought-provoking, and forward-thinking. The short story is about two girls, Roberta and Twyla, one black and one white, who grow up together at an orphanage but through chance, meet each other several times by chance throughout their adult life.
One of my favorite parts about the story is how ambiguous Toni Morrison is with her character descriptions. This piece is a clearly a story about race, but we have no idea whether the narrator, Twyla, is black or white. Morrison leaves so much description out that no clear argument can be made about who is black and who is white in the story, and when this ambiguous writing style is utilized in a story partially about racial tensions during the Civil Rights movement and several other riots that occurred afterwards.
But then I got to thinking... does it really matter? I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't. I found this story tragic because two childhood friends inevitably drifted farther and farther apart from each other to the point where their relationship became hostile, and this was due to racial tensions. When Twyla encounters Roberta for the first time since their childhood at St. Bonny's, Twyla is extremely excited to see Roberta but Roberta brushes her off, and gives this explanation to Twyla about why that was later on in the story, "you know how it was in those days: black-white. You know how everything was."
What I found most touching about this story was Roberta and Twyla's initial friendship at St. Bonny's. Back then, they were innocent and probably not entirely aware of race. One of the workers at St. Bonny's, Maggie, is teased by a lot of the girls there, but when Roberta and Twyla meet up later in life, they have no idea whether Maggie was black or if she was white. This because they never payed close enough attention to the color of Maggie's skin to begin with, they lived in a world where divisions between black and white didn't exist. Roberta and Twyla were very similar in their childhoods, they both had mothers who were unfit to take care of them. It is a shame that Roberta and Twyla eventually began to dislike each other when they began protesting on opposite sides when it came to segregation is schools, and that at the end of the day, when it came to that incident, they were more loyal to their "race" as opposed to being more loyal to their prior friendship. Because of issues like race, which shouldn't really be issues at all, a rift was caused between the two former friends. I believe through the overall plot of the story, as well as the ambiguity of both main characters' races, as well as the confusion over Maggie's race at the end of the story, Toni Morrison is encouraging society to live in a world where issues like race shouldn't be that big a deal, and to just let people be who they are, and that people should be classified in terms of the color of their skin.
One of my favorite parts about the story is how ambiguous Toni Morrison is with her character descriptions. This piece is a clearly a story about race, but we have no idea whether the narrator, Twyla, is black or white. Morrison leaves so much description out that no clear argument can be made about who is black and who is white in the story, and when this ambiguous writing style is utilized in a story partially about racial tensions during the Civil Rights movement and several other riots that occurred afterwards.
But then I got to thinking... does it really matter? I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't. I found this story tragic because two childhood friends inevitably drifted farther and farther apart from each other to the point where their relationship became hostile, and this was due to racial tensions. When Twyla encounters Roberta for the first time since their childhood at St. Bonny's, Twyla is extremely excited to see Roberta but Roberta brushes her off, and gives this explanation to Twyla about why that was later on in the story, "you know how it was in those days: black-white. You know how everything was."
What I found most touching about this story was Roberta and Twyla's initial friendship at St. Bonny's. Back then, they were innocent and probably not entirely aware of race. One of the workers at St. Bonny's, Maggie, is teased by a lot of the girls there, but when Roberta and Twyla meet up later in life, they have no idea whether Maggie was black or if she was white. This because they never payed close enough attention to the color of Maggie's skin to begin with, they lived in a world where divisions between black and white didn't exist. Roberta and Twyla were very similar in their childhoods, they both had mothers who were unfit to take care of them. It is a shame that Roberta and Twyla eventually began to dislike each other when they began protesting on opposite sides when it came to segregation is schools, and that at the end of the day, when it came to that incident, they were more loyal to their "race" as opposed to being more loyal to their prior friendship. Because of issues like race, which shouldn't really be issues at all, a rift was caused between the two former friends. I believe through the overall plot of the story, as well as the ambiguity of both main characters' races, as well as the confusion over Maggie's race at the end of the story, Toni Morrison is encouraging society to live in a world where issues like race shouldn't be that big a deal, and to just let people be who they are, and that people should be classified in terms of the color of their skin.
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
A & P- John Updike
This short story was very nostalgic for me because I remember having to read this one all the way back in junior high school for an English class, and I remember it being one of the more controversial and mature things I had ever read at that time and overall, I think the story is simple enough that anyone can really analyze it, and I just thought it served as a great gateway into future literary analyses I had to do later on in high school.
John Updike's work can come off as misogynistic to some, and although I haven't really read anything else from Updike other than A & P, I'm willing to give this a pass considering the narrator seems to be a hormonal teenage boy, and seeing three women walk into a grocery store with bikinis is obviously not something that he sees everyday, and for him, it is impossible to avoid. Also, at least he is not Stokesie, who seems to be even more aroused by the girls than Sammy is, and he is married.
However, it is kind of off-putting that Sammy quit his job because of what happened to the girls in the store, especially if his intent was to impress them and have them to himself, which could be the case when he walks out of the store and sees that the girls are nowhere to be found. However, I think an argument can be made that he quit because he didn't like the way that girls were treated by the manager, or perhaps the incident was a whole just triggered another epiphany in Sammy in that he shouldn't be working here altogether. His life seems pretty boring and the girls walking into the store dressed like they were was probably the most unpredictable and exciting thing that has ever happened at that A & P. I just truly don't think Sammy was happy there.
John Updike's work can come off as misogynistic to some, and although I haven't really read anything else from Updike other than A & P, I'm willing to give this a pass considering the narrator seems to be a hormonal teenage boy, and seeing three women walk into a grocery store with bikinis is obviously not something that he sees everyday, and for him, it is impossible to avoid. Also, at least he is not Stokesie, who seems to be even more aroused by the girls than Sammy is, and he is married.
However, it is kind of off-putting that Sammy quit his job because of what happened to the girls in the store, especially if his intent was to impress them and have them to himself, which could be the case when he walks out of the store and sees that the girls are nowhere to be found. However, I think an argument can be made that he quit because he didn't like the way that girls were treated by the manager, or perhaps the incident was a whole just triggered another epiphany in Sammy in that he shouldn't be working here altogether. His life seems pretty boring and the girls walking into the store dressed like they were was probably the most unpredictable and exciting thing that has ever happened at that A & P. I just truly don't think Sammy was happy there.
I Celebrate Myself and Sing Myself- Walt Whitman
When I first saw this on the syllabus, I instantly recognized that this particular poem was the opening lines of Walt Whitman's "Song of Myself", which was one of the most well-crafted and thought-provoking poems I had ever read. One thing I like about this poem and Walt Whitman in particular is his free verse. This poem was a welcome change of pace for "I wandered lonely as a cloud". I love that Walt Whitman is radical in both form and content. The complete poem in general felt American to me because it was meant to be unifying, as evidenced by such passages as "For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you" and "Born here of parents born here from parents the same, and their parents the same."
In this opening part of the poem, I believe that Whitman is referring to himself, but later on in "Song of Myself", he does great things by putting himself in other people's shoes and experiencing their walks of life, and tying everyone together to form a sense of unity. As America's social classes were becoming more and more stratified, this work to me seems extremely proletariat and really bridged the gap between realism while still having many romantic elements.
In this opening part of the poem, I believe that Whitman is referring to himself, but later on in "Song of Myself", he does great things by putting himself in other people's shoes and experiencing their walks of life, and tying everyone together to form a sense of unity. As America's social classes were becoming more and more stratified, this work to me seems extremely proletariat and really bridged the gap between realism while still having many romantic elements.
Hills Like White Elephants- Ernest Hemingway
This short story kind of confused me at first. Since it was short, I decided to reread it to get the full meaning. I knew that the man was trying to constantly reassure his girlfriend that getting some sort of operation was her choice and that she didn't need to go through with it if she didn't want to, but she continually says that she's fine and that she just doesn't want to talk about it anymore. I assumed this operation was an abortion, and I looked it up just to be sure, and although obviously never said in the story, it is implied, and that many girls have done it before. To me, the girl in this story just seems extremely depressed to be in this situation altogether. I definitely think she wants to keep the baby but I think that she just feels the pressure from almost everyone around her, and imagines if she would be able to have everything she wants in life if she does end up deciding to not go through with the abortion. Her remarking that the hills look like white elephants are her trying to make a situation something that it isn't, and maybe that it's possible for her to keep it.
Personally, I found the story enjoyable just because I know what the girl is talking about when she is looking at the mountains. I think Ernest Hemingway made a wise choice by placing this short story in Spain, much like his book For Whom the Bell Tolls. I went to Barcelona my junior year of high school for spring break and the mountains were extremely breathtaking, and something about the Spanish landscape really puts you in another place. Being somewhere foreign gives you new perspectives and makes you think about things differently. The girl may be experiencing this in the short story in being such a wonderful place.
Personally, I found the story enjoyable just because I know what the girl is talking about when she is looking at the mountains. I think Ernest Hemingway made a wise choice by placing this short story in Spain, much like his book For Whom the Bell Tolls. I went to Barcelona my junior year of high school for spring break and the mountains were extremely breathtaking, and something about the Spanish landscape really puts you in another place. Being somewhere foreign gives you new perspectives and makes you think about things differently. The girl may be experiencing this in the short story in being such a wonderful place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)