The Snow Child reponse

The snow child happened to be really confusing for me and its clear that it could be interpreted in many different ways. I think whaen angela carter wrote this short story she allowed for such anaylisis based on the fact that the topic of this short story is so questionable. It deals with possible incest which is such a sensitive subject to adress in a short story especially when the general trend is a really messed up, gothic, pornographic fairy tale. It just seems so outrageous. This is almost a dream like story in which the count dreams up a girl and she appears, then throughout the story the countess tries to kill her, in the end its like something seemingly harmless did the job for the countess.

During the class disscussion many things that i haden't personally thought about arose and i found them really interesting the fact that maybe the girl was a symbol of evil and the countess was the victim, in this case i could possibly understand the story more.

Another way that I thought about it was that maybe it was like a previous memory. Because the part before the story tells about it being the coountesses dead daughter. The count obviously found the girl much more beautiful then his wife. Maybe it wasn't his daughter, just the countesses. The count expressed an interest in the countesses daughter so she killed her.

I dont know the whole thing is really messed up for me but i liked the story anyhow.

The bloody chamber - (Not sure if this is suppose to be an essay or a general response)

Angela Carters "The bloody chamber" from what I can see is made up of three main genres and it is the only novel I have read that can combine Fairy-tale, Gothic horror and oddly enough a sort of pornography in a way that is just about comfortable for an audience to read. For example, fairy-tale are suppose to be read by children or a parental figure with a child's innocence in mind normally for a moralistic value such as, "Talking to strangers is wrong" or "Resist temptation" The bloody chamber takes these values and twists it for the purpose of an adult. The name itself is quite graphic an can be interpreted in many ways. The huge mass of sexual imagery in the story is shocking based on the fact that the young lady is spoken to and treated like a child, also the man in the novel takes her virginity, the last scrap of innocence that she has remaining, so he more or less breaks that link with her being a child in the novel. The gothic nature is just about everywhere in the novel, where it talks about the gargoyles above the bed, the mirrors and the ironic flowers (lillies). This is in fact one of the only novels that made me personally feel uncomfortable simply because the novel itself deals with quite sensitive topics in which I have never read before. I can relate things such as the temptation idea with thing such as paradise lost and there are a few other links with other novels like when she discusses the sisterhood, that I relate highly to macbeth with the witches and the context in which that word was used didn't seem fitting the the phrase being said. The whole novel seemed very odd. Its different because of its topics and its language. Throughout the novel she speaks beautifully and poetically, then simply out of nowhere she uses some quiet shocking words with some very sexual imagery which does not really fit the young girls personality what so ever. Also the way that she simply accepts her death is very strange, if her mother had not turned up, the the girl would have been dead. I can also link the blood mark on the girls head with Lady macbeth in the way that Lady Macbeth will always see the blood on her hand just like the girl with the mark on her head.

The ending, although this has nothing to do with the question as such was well ... awful. I really did not like it. It seems so rushed and ineffective in the way that her mum just pulls up on a horse and shoots the husband in his head and that basically was the end. I didn't understand it, i was expecting a really drawn out battle where the husband could have been described as the tiger that the mother had previously taken down with her bare hands. But no, he was simply killed in an instant. IP have never been disappointed in an ending of a novel up until i read this, im sure there are reasons but none that i could deem worthy of such a terrible ending.

La Haine - Film Reponse

1995
Mathieu Kassovitz

The film focuses on three yound man over the span of 24 hours. Vinz seems to be enraged almost all of the time and seemingly has one overall goal in life, to get respect, i think when he finds the gun its more or less a quick ticket to this respect. I get the impression that this guy is really messed up based on the fact that he througout the film sees a cow, also the fact that somebody can be so enraged all the time is just out of the question.

Hubert as a character really confused me, i almost felt like he should have been the enraged one rather the Vinz. He owned his own gym and it got burnt down with all the rioting, the film mentions about him working hard to get the grant for the gym and once he had it, it got burnt down. So simply because of that reason i figured he was really going to be crazy. Ironically, he was the oppisite, he seemed like the one in the group who always seemed to contain things and calm most situations.

The other guy, sa'id, i had no idea about actually. I couldn't understand excatly what his goal was in the film, other then maybe "Being" his brother. He seemed like a leader in their group but almost seemed to be undermined all the time. He simply seemed to have no authority amungst the group. I simply saw him as the "pannel" between Vinz and Hubert because he really was only shown when he was splitting them up from fighting.

The film as a whole i found to be quite entertaining, I liked the storylike in a way that you could understand where the messages were coming from. Although there were a few messages, i understood them well. There were alot of interesting camera shots as well as some ammusing sound effects but based on it low budget it was more or less expected.

The gun played a huge role in the film because it was the key to each persons goal.

I like the fact that the police weren't ever called the police in the film, they were always refered to as "Pigs"... Their corruption also made them seem like another gang on the estate, not nessasarily the helpful figures you would normally expect them to be.

To what extent do you sympathise with Frankensteins monster in chapter 11?

Chapter 11 is basically the monster telling his story. Told through the monster himself. Throughout this chapter he does make the audience sympathise with him as he describes many human qualities that a conventional monster generally wouldn't have. He describes how he "Sat and wept" His tale is really depressing he describes how he felt frighten and how he was cold because of this the audience can relate to his human side and i think this is the first chapter in which the story is told from the other side therefore you can understand the monster more and forget that he is in fact a monster. I think this is done deliberatley by shelley to make the audience question their own morality. I think also it is still reletive to our society ... race and sexuallity seem no longer to be that much of an issue but faced with a monster or something else unknown would we as a society be as accepting as we feel we would be or would we react in the same way that Victor did. On the other hand it could be different based on the terms that Victor created the monster ... therefore he naturally should be faced with some form or meternal responsibility even though he doesn't so the argument could be argued from many different sides but it doesn'[t change the fact that during this chapter you do sympathise with the monster. I think that any human would sympathise with the monster simply because this chapter ... because the narative is from the monster veiw point, makes you forget that he is a monster because of all the descriptions about human emotions, fears and qualities. He shares the same ambitions with humans on the terms that he just wants to be accepted and/or loved by somebody or something. Dont we all deserve that?

In this chapter also ... and in previous and following chapters i see the monster as Victors "Dead romantic" side. Whilst creating the monster, for the two years, Victor lost this romantic side of him, the monster now claims that he finds solice in nature. We can relate that to victor because its simply showing that the monster has more or less inherreted some of this romantisim. The monster almost give you a consistent reminder that he is so linked to Victor yet they both dont know it. Its quite odd.

I sympathise with them both simply because this chapter really reveals both sides of the story, you can sympathise with Victor because he is scared himself, and after seeing the monsters eyes, he realised the extent of what he has done. On the other hand, Victor should have tried to accept the monster instead of abandoning him because obviously it wasn't the monsters fault that he was created and he needed to be taught the lessons in life.

.....................................................................................................

At his point i stopped writing stuff about my essay question and found this ... Its helped me alot ...Look it up =]

Morality without God

http://www.articlemyriad.com/96.htm

Frankenstein chapter 11

Q - What techniques does Mary Shelley use to make the reader feel sympathetic towards the monster? in chapter 11



"I sat down and wept" - This shows that although the "monster" isn't accepted as human he has some form of human qualities in the way that he feels and expresses his emotions. Through crying.



"Monster" - Just even the fact that he doesn't have a name would make us sympathise with him because he has been totally rejected before he was accepted. He didn't even get a chance but moreover it wasn't his fault that he was created.



"I felt cold and half frightened"

Witches.

The witches significance.

I think the witches in Macbeth are used to emphisis Macbeths darker side. At the begining of the play, Macbeth is see as a noble-man, a good honest warrior who fought for Scotland.

The witches simply, as they say "plant seeds" that in turn slowly pull Macbeth over to the "Dark side" prehaps without Macbeth even knowing. Macbeth even gets refered to as "Black Macbeth" throughout the play, he slowly becomes more evil in the things that he does for example setting murderers after Banquo, Fleaunce, Macduff and Macduff's son and wife. With each visit from the witches Macbeth seeingly gets worse.

I think the witches are a representation of Destiny, and a set path that has been chosen for you.

In the play, you could argue whether Macbeth would have killed King Duncan to become king if it hadn't been for the witches interference. Would he even have known that he would be in line for King? Well my argument is this, Maybe Macbeth's path was to meet these witches, maybe he had no choice, he was destined to kill Duncan the way that he did and to gradually become evil.

At one point Macbeth even said himself that if the witches didn't give him the information that he wanted he would curse them forever. This could possibly connote the fact that Macbeth has become the things he calls "old hags", a witch himself.

I think that the relevence of the witches is just to show Macbeths venture into the dark side.

Act III Reading journal.

Act III shows the death of Banquo. A scene that arguably could in fact be left out of Macbeth all together. I however find this scene very important because of the fact that Banquo tell Fleaunce, his son to "Fly, Fly,Fly". I find this one of the most important phrases in the entire play because of the play reference to birds.

In a previous scene Macbeth talks about an Owl, "taking out" a Hawk. This is important to remember because at the time this is said, Macbeth is the owl and King Duncan is the Hawk. Once Macbeth had murdered King Duncan, He almost instantly became the Hawk himself. Now back to the present scene, Banquo whilst being murdered himself tells his son to "Fly Fly Fly" and get revenge, almost entitling him as a bird, therefore making Fleaunce the Owl, seeking revenge over Macbeth, now the Hawk.

Another thing is the way that we see Macbeth change in this act in particular. He gradually throughout the play changes as surcomes to the witches minipulation. The said at the beggining that they will plant seeds, maybe now these seeds had formed thus altaring macbeth. Another thing that facinates me is Macbeths relationship with his wife Lady Macbeth who seems almost like a witch herself in the way that she doesn't beat around the bush. What she and Macbeth have done has been done and she always just bluntly puts it to Macbeth. Its a bit ironic that Lady ~Macbeth is always trying to cool Macbeth down and reasure him that they will not be caught but at the same time she puts it so bluntly to him that he has no choice but to remember and panic about it.

We also see the introduction of, Hiscat, the "Cheif" witch if you like. Hiscat follows the same trend as the witches but seems to remain much more rule bound. Following set rule about witchcraft and almost telling the other witches off about the way that they told macbeth of future events.

TBC