A Doll House

        The play, "A Doll House," was a rather intersting one. When the play started off, Nora and her husband seemed to have a very happy relationship and home setting. Nora and her husband even joked around, and she would even act in foolish animal ways to please Torvald. For example, in Act 1 Torvald says to Nora: “Is that my squirrel rummaging around?” When he says this, Nora automatically does squirrel like actions, especially when Torvald starts handing out money to her. Truthfully, I found this odd and childish. Nora was basically being treated just like one of her own kids.
        After the first few parts of the play, I automatically started rethinking Nora and Torvald's "happy" marriage. I noticed that she was overly pleased with recieving money, and like I mentioned earlier, she would act in childish ways just to get an extra dollar from her husband. “Ten – twenty – thirty – forty. Oh, thank you, Torvald: I can manage no end on this” This, from Act 1, shows how money is basically the main reason Nora even acts in her squirrel-like ways. It's not only to please Torvald, but it also pleases Nora's wallet.
        As the play goes on, we soon find out how Nora borrowed money from Krogstand just to save Torvald's life. Nora tries extremely hard to keep Torvald from ever finding out her crime, though, Krogstand ends up ratting her out anyway. This is defiantly when it shows that Nora and Torvald's marriage isn't a happy one. He even threatened to ban Nora from seeing her own children! Though, once the crisis was all over and done with, and everything was back to "normal," Torvald believed his marriage should be back to normal as well. Nora thought differently. I would have to admit, I would feel and think differently as well. How could you say "I love you" to someone who never stands beside you through thick and thin? In Act 3, Torvald even calls Nora a featherbrained and stupid woman! "I'll be swept down miserably into the depths on account of a featherbrained woman." I don't believe a husband should never degrade the one he supposedly loves so much like how Torvald did.
        At the end, Nora leaves Torvald, their children, and her nice home. I can't say I agree with her for leaving her children, but I, personally, wouldn't be able to live with Torvald anymore. He is nothing but a superficial lover, and what he only cares what the public thinks of him.

Wild Nights! Wild Nights!

"Wild Nights! Wild Nights!" was one of the very first poems I have read that Emily Dickinson wrote. This poem shows a lot of passion and rapture that Dickinson wanted to express, and of course, her writing is the only way she truly expressed her feelings—physcially and emotionally. The following two lines from the poem shows Dickinson’s passionate dreams: “Wild nights should be, Our luxury!”

When I think of the word, “luxury,” I think of pure happiness or lust. I think this is why Dickinson used this certain wordage on purpose, of course, to furthur explain her passionate feelings.

            You can take and critique this poem in several different ways. It’s a short poem, and each word has a significant but big meaning. The very first two lines in the poem: “Wild nights! Wild nights! Were I with thee,” makes me think as if Dickinson is thinking about past pleasures. The narrator was riminiscing about her past love, perhaps.
            Last but not least, I think when Dickinson used the lines, “Ah! the sea!,” she used the sea as a passionate wording because many people think of the sea or the beach in particular just as being romantic. Like I mentioned earlier, this is a short poem, though, each word has a big meaning.

            Over all, at first when I read this poem, I didn’t quite understand it. Once we talked about it in class, though, I grasped a better understanding of Dickinson’s writing type.

Behind Grandma's House

So far, out of all the poems we have reviewed this semester, Gary Soto’s poem, Behind Grandma’s Hosue, is one of my favorites. This poem tells about a little boy acting all big and bad in his Grandma’s backyard—of course, Grandma’s house is usually where children can get away with things and not get in trouble. Throughout the poem, the little boy does various “bad boy” things.

Lines 6- 10 proved my earlier statemet:

“And wanted to prove I was tough

In the alley, kicking over trash cans,

A dull chime of tuna cans falling.

I hurled light bulbs like grenades

And men teachers held their heads,

Fingers of blood lengthening”

            I find all these actions quite hilarious! I remember when I was a little girl, I loved going to my grandma’s house, because I knew I could get away with anything. My grandma was defiantly oblivious to what nonsense I could get myself into. However, what makes this poem so funny is the little boy’s grandma wasn’t oblivious. She knew exactly what he was up to, and boy did she put a stop to it!

            The last two lines of the poem made the point across to the readers that grandma really did know what was going on:

                       

“Her hair mussed, and said, ‘Let me help you,’

                        And punched me between the eyes.”

            I personally felt as if the little boy wanted to act like a “bad” kid just for attention. What little boy doesn’t want to be known as the “cool kid” on the block? Like I mentioned earlier, I knew I was capable of getting away with almost anything at my grandma’s house, so he thought he would be able to as well. The little boy was proved wrong, and I highly doubt he’ll be kicking over cans and cussing out loud again anytime soon.

forgiving my father

                Lucille Clifton’s poem,” forgiving my father,” describes her family as being nothing but broke. Broke because of their father—not just money broke, but also, emotionally unstable. Her father favored his son, rather than his daughter and wife. In class, we discussed how this poem uses an extended metaphor. In several different ways, Clifton uses words that lead back to money and favoritism.

                In the beginning of the poem, she starts off with “it is Friday, we have come to the paying of bills.” Friday is usually the day that people get paid on and it’s a happy day; however, in this poem, Clifton dreads payday-- “all week you have stood in my dreams like a ghost, asking for more time.” For her and her family, paying bills is such a stressful task, because of her father. Her father had already spent all the money they needed to use on their bills, not on her or her mother, but on her brother. In this poem, the son’s in the family got all the father’s attention, and of course, all of the money.

                How would you feel if one of your parents gave his/her undivided attention and love to just one of your siblings, and none to you? Luckily, I have amazing parents, but I can only imagine how crummy that would feel. This poem, to me, not only expresses how stressed out the narrator is about money, but how sad she feels about her father not showing any affection for her (or her mother). The lines that express how the narrator feels about this situation are the following—“old liar. I wish you were rich so I could take it all but you were the son of a needy father, the father of a needy son, you gave her all you had which as nothing.” It seems that the narrator’s life wasn’t a pleasant one at all. It’s one thing to have a problem with money, but it’s another thing to have to live through life being her father’s second choice.

A Raison in the Sun

                Lorraine Hansberry’s play A Raisin in the Sun was an inspiring play. The first time I read this play I knew very little about the author’s background history, and I didn’t quite understand it. However, once we discussed the play and Hansberry’s life story, it made more sense.  

                This play teaches readers not to allow money to take advantage of what really matters. Walter Lee wanted to invest his father’s security check into a liquor store. Mama, though, felt as if selling liquor was almost like a sin. She wanted to purchase a bigger house for the family instead, which would benefit everyone. Walter Lee believed that investing in a liquor store would bring the family more wealth, which would cause the family to be happier. As the play went on, though, Walter Lee was proved wrong. Mama ended up giving him the money for his liquor store, but his business partner took off with his money—leaving Walter Lee with nothing, and with no investments.

                This play teaches the characters, and also the readers of the play, important life lessons. Never allow the greed of expected wealth to overcome what truly and deeply matters. Mama knew that buying a new house was the best idea, but from the very beginning of the play, Walter Lee had it dead set in his mind that opening a liquor store would be a better option. He believed in his dream, and I personally didn’t think he took anything into consideration. I felt as if he acted on impulse, which is easy to do when it comes to a large amount of money—especially if you aren’t used to having “extra cash.”

                In class we discussed the primary conflicts in the play. Lorraine Hansberry was a feminist writer, so from the start she had conflicts between the men and women. We discussed how she shows her belief that women could take care of money a lot better than men could. It was made clear that she didn’t trust black men financially—women are a lot more responsible in financial decisions.

                Some other primary conflicts throughout the play were between the older and younger generations, but one of the biggest ones that stuck out to me was the conflict between the white and black people. There was a scene in the play that actually still showed white people pushing for segregation. Mr. Linder offered the family money not to move into the white neighborhood, even though the family has the right to. This family not only had to deal with family and money issues, but they also had to deal with racial conflicts as well.

 As I read this play, I felt as if this family would never catch a “break.” Even when they attempted to better themselves, they weren’t successful, or as successful as they believed they would have been. Over all, though, Mama kept positive. Mama was the only one who truly cared about keeping her family together and safe. Mama, I thought, provided wisdom for her family members, and attempted to keep the family history still going—even with all the hardships they had to live through.

Trifles

      Susan Glaspell’s play Trifles entertained me just as much as the play The Elephant Man. I actually think I may have enjoyed reading Glaspell’s play better, though, because the women in this play played a very important part—without even realizing it at first.
      This play was a murder mystery. John Wright, the victim, was found dead—someone had strangled him. Who could the murderer be? Of course, the whole reason for this play was to attempt to find out who did such a horrible crime in such a small area. The plot starts to unroll as you continue reading the play. The women, who the men think are basically nervous and unwitty, seem to unravel the murder mystery little by little. The men on the other hand, have no idea what could have happened to John Wright. They seem to leave the small things—the “trifles”—out of the main conclusion. 
      Another reason I enjoyed this play was because I found humor in it as well as feeling it was just a murder mystery play. The women noticed such little details that actually ended up solving the whole mystery. The women noticed a quilt that had perfect stitching patterns except for the end, which was very messy. The women started looking for a pair of scissors to fix it, and as they did so, they found the dead bird in the sewing box—the bird had been strangled to death. This is when it all came together; John Wright strangled Minnie’s bird, so Minnie strangled her husband. The bird’s cage door was broken, which the men noticed, but the women automatically blame the death of the bird on the cat. This information the women kept from them, obviously steered the men away from framing Minnie.
      In class, we discussed whether or not what the women did was wrong or right. I put some thought into it, and personally, yes, I do think what they did was wrong. The law is the law. I am interested and I do support women power, but murder is a serious crime. I think the women should have shared the information that they found; even though, the men, who were supposedly the “real” detectives, should have found the evidence themselves. I understand, though, why Minnie committed such a horrible crime. She obviously was miserable at her lonely farmhouse, and her husband was a mean, unemotional, human-being. Minnie’s only friend was her beloved bird, and when her husband strangled the bird to its death—Minnie did the same to her husband.
      What I found humorous in this poem was how the men laughed at the women for being so “nervous.” They made comments about how the women only noticed the small things—the Trifles. What is so ironic is that the small things turned out to be the big things—they actually solved the whole murder!  So men, before you go assuming that us women don’t know anything—pay more attention to your surroundings!

Today Was a Bad Day Like TB

                Chrystos’ poem, “Today Was a Bad Day Like TB,” was a different type of poem. When I read it the first time, I automatically noticed how the author didn’t use any kind of punctuation marks, but she used spaces instead. I felt as if by the author doing so, it made us readers understand how bold the author’s words and feelings were.

                Chrystos was a Native American writer who obviously felt as if her culture was taken over; she didn’t appreciate other “white” people attempting to imitate her culture. In the poem, she clearly seems racist towards the white man who did attempt to get her attention with his flashy red peace pipe. In the second line in the poem she states, “Saw young blond hippie boy with a red stone pipe.” She wouldn’t give that “blond hippie boy” any attention at all.

                In class, we discussed if we thought the author was “racist” or not towards white people. I said yes at first, but after some thinking, I would have to say I “feel” for Chrystos. I have never had my personal heritage ripped out from underneath me, but who am I to call the author racist? She, along with many other Native Americans, had their culture torn apart, and many of their families had to suffer. The author doesn’t even have the power to take her culture/heritage back from us white people. She feels helpless, and in this poem, she clearly vented her aggravation.

                Chrystos compared her bad day to tuberculosis, which I thought was a very neat comparison, and clever. Back in the day, tuberculosis was a dreaded disease to Native Americans. It was a disease that, then, wasn’t curable and killed many Native American Indians. The author thought so badly about losing her heritage to us white people, that she compared her conversation with the “young blond hippie boy” to TB. Clearly, she shows her perspectives between Native American Indians and white people.

                Other lines that I thought were very strong and to the point, were the last four: “Today was a day like TB you cough and cough trying to get it out all that comes is blood and spit.” I feel as if the author was trying to say that no matter how hard she tries, she will never be able to retrieve her culture back again. It was already taken over in the past, and now she only has memories of it. She obviously is bitter about this fact, and like I mentioned earlier, she is defiantly clear about her personal feelings—she isn’t afraid to let her feelings show through. This is what makes the poem so unique; she expresses her feelings in such a way that other authors have never done before.   So would you all her racist? Now, that I sat down and put some thought into it, I don’t consider her racist. She is just a very strong and proud Native American Indian that wants her heritage back where it belongs.