Blog Post #8

Part 1)

For the Mr. Hyde characterization I am choosing the excerpt from Chapter 1. For the Dr. Jekyll one I am choosing the excerpt from Chapter 3. I would also like to point out that you ruined the book for me because I did not know that Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are the same person until I watched the Arthur video.

The difference in the descriptions of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are interesting because Stevenson is, in essence, describing the same person. By having the characters of the book perceive Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in such different ways however, it shows the duality of identity and internal conflict that one person can hold. The man described as Mr. Hyde in chapter one by Mr. Enfield is a polar opposite being from the Dr. Jekyll portrayed in chapter three by Mr. Utterson. Enfield states that there is “something down-right detestable” about Mr. Hyde, although he “can name nothing out of the way”. This means that while he finds Mr. Hyde’s appearance utterly repulsive, there is no way to quantify the way he looks with words. On the other hand, Dr. Jekyll is described to be “a large, well-made, smooth-faced man”, which contrasts with that of Mr. Hyde’s because Dr. Jekyll’s appearance is physically described and he is shown to be somewhat attractive. Stevenson uses appearance to develop a positive image with Dr. Jekyll to the reader by creating his character to be handsome, and a negative image with Mr. Hyde by showing his appearance to be hideous.

Stevenson also uses character’s actions and their reactions to elicit a response from the audience in the novella. In chapter one, the nature of Mr. Hyde is shown when he mercilessly hits a young girl and shows no remorse. The characters show their attitudes towards Mr. Hyde by demonstrating utter disdain towards him and what he had done. At the dinner party in chapter three, Dr. Jekyll makes a questionable decision to keep Mr. Hyde in his will, against Mr. Utterson’s wishes, but Mr. Utterson respects Dr. Jekyll’s choice because he believes him to be a good person. This speaks to how Dr. Jekyll is perceived as a good man to others because although Mr. Utterson abhors Mr. Hyde, he respects Dr. Jekyll’s wishes because he believes him to be a good man.

Part 2)

Dr. Jekyll                                              Mr. Hyde

I am Dr. Jekyll.                                       

                                                               I am Mr. Hyde. 

I am beloved by all,

dinner guests adore me,

I have loyal friends.

                                                                 

                                                               I live in the obsolete,                                                          

                                                               None can describe me,

None know my true identity.                 None know my true identity.

I despise Mr. Hyde,

I am a good man,

but I cannot escape him.

I am admired by many,

                                                               I am hated by all.

I cannot escape the truth that,

I am Mr. Hyde.                                      I am Dr. Jekyll.

The intended purpose of this poem is to demonstrate that Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are the same person and to highlight their differences in personalities. It is shown that they are the same person by having them say that they are each other in the final line. The differences in their personalities are shown by having them describe themselves. Dr. Jekyll talks about how he is a good person who is admired by all, and Mr. Hyde talks about how everyone hates him and how he lives in obscurity. 

Blog Post #7

For this blog post, the character from Macbeth that I will be choosing recommendations for is Macbeth.

#1: House of Cards:

This is perhaps the most obvious show choice for Macbeth. In fact, I would not be surprised if the writers of this show directly modeled a majority of their plotline after Macbeth. In House of Cards, Kevin Spacey plays Frank Underwood, a southern congressman from South Carolina who is willing to do whatever it takes to gain power for himself. At the beginning of the show, Frank holds the position of House Whip, which grants him an important, but lowly level of power within government. After being passed up by the presidential administration to be Secretary of State, Frank goes on a path of diabolical political maneuvering in order to achieve the level of power he so desperately longed for. This political maneuvering ends with him in the greatest position of power available: the President of the United States.

House of Cards would be a must-watch for Macbeth because Frank Underwood is the embodiment of him. Frank wants nothing more than to reach the highest level of power possible, the presidency, just as Macbeth wants to become king. Another parallel between the two characters is their wives, which both play an important role within their lives by being strong, assertive women and largely influential factors. Also, both Frank and Macbeth are not above committing the act of murder in order to achieve what they want. Since the two men are so similar to one another, Macbeth could not resist watching House of Cards.

#2: J. Edgar:

J. Edgar is the story of J. Edgar Hoover and his rise to director of the FBI. In J. Edgar, Hoover’s career, which is depicted by Leonardo DiCaprio, is shown from his days as a lowly agent and transitions throughout time as he grows to become the direction of the FBI. In the movie, Hoover is shown to be a man who is largely haunted by personal demons. He is shown to be a narcissist, as he takes credit for acts of heroism that he did not do, and also lies to himself about being homosexual, a combination of which causes him to be emotionally unstable at times. In his reign as the longest serving FBI Director, Hoover accumulates a “black book” in order to blackmail political opponents and remain in power. Most famously, the film accuses that he illegally recorded the affair of President Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe, but also had files on the transgressions of all U.S. presidents.

Macbeth would enjoy watching J. Edgar because it would be reflective on his own personality. Hoover’s emotionally instability, caused by his narcissism and inability to come to terms with his homosexuality, would be matched by Macbeth’s distress over murdering King Duncan and Banquo. Also, Macbeth would enjoy Hoover’s political maneuverings, as the dishonesty of them would match his own actions of murdering King Duncan.

#3: Wolf of Wall Street:

In Wolf of Wall Street, Leonardo DiCaprio plays Jordan Belford, an alpha male who only cares about one thing: gaining money and the power that is associated with it. In the movie, Belford starts off as an honest man who only cares about providing for him and his wife. However, as the movie progresses, a series of bad decision lead to Belford’s corruption. While for a time he has everything he wants, his destructive personality leads to him losing everything that he holds dear.

This film is a recommendation for Macbeth because Belford’s life is similar to Macbeth’s own. Both started off with humble beginnings, but due to their love of power and bad decisions end up with nothing. Macbeth would also enjoy viewing Belford’s alpha-male personality, as it would be similar to his own.

#4: Narcos:

The show Narcos, follows the rise to and fall from power of Colombian drug dealer Pablo Escobar. The series starts with Escobar’s formation of the Medellin Cartel, and shows how the drug dealer became one of the most powerful men in Colombia. In the show, Escobar has to deal with rival drug cartels and the nuisance of the Colombian and American governments. His personality can be summed up in his famous saying “plato o pomo”, which means silver or lead. This means that people could either accept his money or die.

Macbeth would like watching this show because it closely mirrors his own life. Escobar caused his own downfall through a series of bad decision, mostly surrounding killing many innocent people. Macbeth was similar to this in the way that he brought his downfall upon himself through killing Duncan, Macduff’s family, and Banquo. Also, both men are obsessed with power, as Escobar dreamed of controlling Colombia, and Macbeth with Scottland.

Blog Post #6: Witch Slapped

3. Do you believe events in your life have been guided by fate or chance? Why or why not? Based on the text, what do you think Shakespeare's attitude was towards fate? Does Macbeth have any choice in his actions or was everything predetermined? Use examples from the text as your support.

            The question of whether the actions in one’s life are determined by fate versus free will is something that I often contemplate. The reason that this is such a difficult topic for me to come to a consensus on is because I can make a compelling argument for two trains of thought. The first viewpoint that I can make an argument for is that of one’s life being guided by fate. My logic is that if our universe were to stem from some sort of singularity, say, the “Big Bang”, it would be impossible for choice to exist. Every action that has ever occurred, whether it be the formation of our sun, the creation of a solar system light years away from our own, or what I “chose” to have for breakfast yesterday would all have been predetermined, as there was no other way that the universe could have formed. This theory of mine essentially means that “fate” must be what dictates all things, as our lives are predetermined to occur in a specific way.

            My other viewpoint on this topic favors “chance” or “free will” as the driving force behind the actions that govern our lives. While I could see all life being dictated by fate because of our universe being created from a singularity that caused only one set of events to be possible to occur, I also believe that there is merit in the idea of free will. As I go through my day, I am presented with many choices in which I need to make decisions on; when I make these choices, I am doing it on my own free accord, and I do not feel as though what I have done is predetermined or already set in stone. Perhaps part of the reason that I see free will as a valid explanation for human actions is that I cannot bear to think we live in a world where all of our decisions are determined long before our birth and we have no say in how our lives will turn out.

            In Macbeth, I believe that Shakespeare is mocking the idea of fate being the driving factor behind Macbeth’s actions. The reason that I believe this is because Shakespeare has three witches plant the idea to kill King Duncan in Macbeth’s head. From a historical standpoint, we know that Shakespeare most likely did not believe witches to be real as he was both a Catholic sympathizer and well-educated. Since Shakespeare did not believe in witches in real life, and because Macbeth would contain beliefs that reflected Shakespeare’s own, I think that the witches in Macbeth were not meant to be taken literally, and instead represent the desires that the characters truly hold. Other evidence for this theory is that the witches play a very small role in the play. While they plant the initial notion in Macbeth’s head that he could be the king, they did not tell him to stage a coup. The idea to do this instead came from the plotting of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, two humans. For these reasons, I do not believe that Shakespeare would have had Macbeth’s actions be caused by fate; instead, the actions that occur in Macbeth occur as a result of free will. 

Blog Post #5

Follow this YouTube link to watch my vlog!:

https://youtu.be/5IY4PxxdPdE

Blog Post #4

2. How would you best describe the central idea of this chapter? Which phrase from the chapter best helps develop the central idea?

The central idea of chapter seven is that Jane Eyre is attempting to comment on the quality of life and treatment of women within the society that she lives in. She begins the chapter by speaking on the hardships that the main character has to endure on a weekly basis; she is forced to live in extremely cold conditions, and has to walk through intense cold on a regular basis in order to go to church. She, as well as the women that surround her, are deprived of food with any real sustenance, and many times eat only two small meals a day. The women within this story are subjected to physical abuse like this, but chapter seven also seeks to demonstrate the psychological abuse that girls faced in this time period. In this story, there was only one male character: Mr. Brocklehurst. His inclusion in this story seeks to underscore one of the central ideas of this chapter, that women from lower classes are subjugated to a great extent by men. Mr. Brocklehurst only has negative things to say about the girls within the orphanage. He berates one female for having curled hair, discourages any women from wearing extravagant clothing, and publicly shames the main character for accidentally dropping a tablet. Mr. Brocklehurst’s reasoning for doing all of these things was that it was sinful in the eyes of God, yet when three women from the upper-class show up in extravagant clothing, they are not shamed, and rather given seats of honor. This shows that it is not in fact religious reasoning for oppressing the lower-class women, but instead prejudices that people within this society hold, as certain women are allowed to hold rights that others are not.

            The phrase “these ladies were deferentially received by Miss Temple, as Mrs. and the Misses Brocklehurst, and conducted to seats of honour at the top of the room” helps develop the central idea of the chapter because it shows the hypocrisy of Mr. Brocklehurst. He is quick to point out every flaw that he can perceive in the orphan girls, and cites religion as his justification for saying that they were committing wrongdoings. However, when the ladies of higher-class society arrive, not only does Mr. Brocklehurst not berate them for wearing opulent clothing, they are given seats of honor. This means that Eyre is attempting to show that many truly do not believe the religious ideologies used to oppress women, as the same standards are not applied to all women. 

Post 3

            The online dating website Ashley Madison is the creator of this advertisement, which is meant to represent the sin of lust. Founded in 2002, the company began running this advertisement mostly online, but also in some printed publications, soon after. At a first glance, a few things are noticeable about the advertisement. For one, there is a woman to the right of the advertisement with her finger raised to her lips. She is also wearing a wedding ring. The text in this advertisement is very minimal, reading “Ashley Madison”, the name of the company, and just below it “Life is short. Have an affair.” The colors used in the advertisement are very minimal, with only white, black, and the beige of skin used, primarily.

A more in depth analysis of this advertisement reveals much additional information. The woman is obviously married, as she is wearing a wedding ring. This is further supported by the phrase “Have an affair” as one must be in some sort of a relationship to have an affair. Also, the way the woman is photographed is very intentional. She is portrayed from the collar bones up, and there is no evidence of a shirt, which is mean to cause curiosity in the audience. In addition to this, she is the only source of color in the page, which causes her to pop out. The use of short sentence structure is meant to cause a sense of urgency in the audience. By saying “Life is short. Have an affair.” the audience is driven to believe that they are running out of time in their life, and in order to utilize their short time left, they must have an affair.

            The audience of this text is predominantly made up of by males. This is supported by the fact that the subject photographed in this advertisement is a seemingly naked female. The male-based audience is most likely from the middle to upper-middle class, as they would have enough disposable income to pay for a dating website. The audience is further characterized in the way that they are probably married, and are unhappy with their marriage. They would most likely be viewed as immoral by society because they are using a website that is supposed to be an aid for people who want to commit affairs. This would mean that the deadly sin that the Ashley Madison advertisement is exploiting is lust. 

Post 2: What's in a name? (10/2/16)

1) For the majority of my life, I was known as a name other than “Matt”; that name was “Matthew”. When I went to high school, however, I decided to start to go by the name Matt. This shows an interesting divide in my life, as people I have known since before high school still call me Matthew, and people that I met in high school call me Matt. I do not correct people when they call me Matthew, and many times, when I'm not thinking, I'll introduce myself as Matthew to people instead of Matt. This goes to show that my name has very little meaning to me, other than as a means of identification. The name Matthew has roots back to the Bible, with obvious religious ties there. I am not a particularly religious person, though, so this connection does not have much meaning to me. While I like the names Matthew or Matt, neither of them have any deep meaning to me. My parents told me that the reason for providing me with that name was simply because they liked the sound of it, not because it had any significance to them, either. For these reasons, my name does not play a large part in my identity, and does not identify me in any way, other than providing a way for me to be recognized.
2) There is a simple, ongoing example of being “two” that I experience every day. There are two attitudes that one can adopt; the person that you are when you are around your family, and the person that you are when you are around your friends. When I am around my friends, I act differently than I would if I were to be with my family. The language that I use, for example, would most certainly not be the same that I would use with my family. When I am in the car with my friends, we might listen to rap music, and if I were with my family we would listen to country. Also, the the activities that I do are much different. While I might spend a Friday night with my friends at a Millbrook football game and then Cook Out, if I were to instead spend that Friday with my family I would eat a nice dinner and then watch television with them. When I am with my friends in this scenario, I am more like the “individual” and with I'm with my family I am I part of “a larger whole”. The dilemma that exists in being the “individual” and part of “a larger whole” is trying to strike a balance between the two personalities you adopt in each so that you are not a completely different person when switching between them. This means that you must be the person that you want to be all the time, instead of conforming to what you believe each party wants.