Act of Resistance!

For my act of resistence I completely sacrificed using modern forms of communication, no cell phone, facebook, email, etc (on thanksgiving). I decided to resist againts these forms of communication because they really take out the human element of communication, typing away on the internet is so void of emotion, and I figured I'd rid myself of the whole practice the entire day to spend more quality communication time with my family. It was difficult giving up something I take for granted, the instant gratification of being able to talk to anyone at any moment, pin-pointing their exact location, the nearly invasive practice of communicating with anyone at the push of a button or the strike of an enter key. It's insane how non-personal communication has become now that it's easier to "communicate." Anyway, it was very difficult to pull off, I wanted to go check me email quite a bit that day, but the lesson I learned was valuable and I recommend performing your own act of resistance.

Lysistrata - Final Thoughts

Lysistrata was amazing in comparison to HoBA and Hedda Gabbler. I think the main reason I liked it was because it had a happy ending, and I knew quite a bit about Greek life and history before even reading it. Lysistrata was clean-cut, it was very simple to understand (at least for me, I've heard differently from others). Although I did like certain aspects of HoBA and Hedda Gabbler (Hedda is still my favorite character with whom we've been acquainted thus far), I found Lysistrata to be the most enjoyable. I found it interesting how even though it was a totally different type of literature, some of the themes from the three texts we've read so far over-lap, such as gender roles/ the role of women, who maintains the power, etc. And last but not least, I really like saying the name "Kleonike," it's so genuinly Greek.

Lysistrata - Comedy

I really enjoyed thsi play because of its comedic value (and underlying themes of course). There were so many quotes from this book containg sexual innuendos that made the immaturity in all of us leap out a bit. Most of the references in this play were puns, suggestive puns, I often found myself laughing when others weren't (when reading in class), either because I had caught a pun and nobody else did, or because my mind was in the gutter and I thought something to be a pun when in reality it wasn't meant to be (slightly embarassing, it's almost like a "thats what she said joke," addicting in that whenever someone makes this type of joke, everything said during the next 10 minutes becomes a sexual innuendo). But on a more serious note, why did Arostophanes make Lysistrata a comedy rather than something more serious (talking about how bad the war was or something)? I'm think I might know the answer to my own question, I think Aristohpanes made this into a comedy in order to make the play memorable. By making it funny and applicable to everyday life, the play instantly becomes more memorable because its easy to reference and easy to understand. Thank You Aristophanes.

Lysistrata - Unity II

Not only does the theme of "togetherness" involve the uniting of Greek city-states, but also the uniting of the women and men of Greece. Throughout this play, male and female stereotypes reign supreme, clearly showing the division between man and woman in the text, outlining how the man's job is to be outside, tending his war, while the women remain indoors, tending the home (ring any bells, sounds a lot like Bernarda's view of gender roles in "The House of Bernarda Alba"). This seperation in everyday life lacks the unity necessary to ensure peace. The most ironic thing about the lack of unity in everyday life between the men and women, is that the women in society try to re-unite men and women by seperating themselves from men. By taking abstinences, they further seperate themselves in order to to further unite themselves in the end, nearly an "ends justify the means" thing going on. It's funny that things have to get worse before they get better, with the worse coming through abstinence and the better coming through national peace.

Lysistrata - Unity

In the United States we find unity to be the single most important thing (maybe next to freedom), evident in the motto written on our currency "E pluribus unum," out of many one. In Greece, the people struggle for unity, or at least in Ancient Greece during the time period Lysistrata takes place. During this time in Greece, civil war was upon the country, a battle primarily between the Athenians and Spartans, The Peloponesian War. "The worst kind of war is civil war," somebody said this... I don't know who exactly, but I agree with it. There's nothing worse than fighting with your neighbor and fellow citizen. This is primarily what Lysistrata was saying in Aristophanes' play bearing her name, made most evident in her quote on page 102 - "But now, when the Persians sit by and wait, in the very presence of your enemies, you fight each other, destroy Greek men, destroy Greek cities!" This very concisely summarizes how the lack of unity and togetherness destroys an entire culture, while the true enemy, Persia (Graeco-Persian War ended right before the Peloponesian War, and Persia still remained a dangerous threat to Greek affairs).

Lysistrata - Moral Chaos Ensue When Women are Missing

"Moral chaos ensue when women are missing" is a relevent theme within Lysistrata. I think this is true, but not with the opposite being true too. I believe moral chaos would ensue if men were missing too, neither men nor women can do it alone (pun not intended). The quote by the Koryphaios of Men sums this up nicely, "Life with women is hell. Life without women is hell too." Although it should probably be expanded to - "Life with men is hell. Life without men is hell too." We know life without the opposite sex is tough, but what justifies the hell between the coexistence between the two sexes? I think it comes from the inability for men and women to communicate in a proper way; men and women are different and sometimes its hard to completely understand the opposite sex, this is frustrating, and is ultimately why I feel the Koryphaios of men said that life with women was hell.

Lysistrata - "Greekness"

I find it amazing how much the Greek culture during Aritophanes' time differs from our American culture, especially when it comes to sexuality. Our version of Lysistrata that we've read during class has apparently been censored from a lot of this sexuality, it's more sexual than what we've read. I found it interesting that our society finds the need to censor books because of the amount of sex in them, especially when sex is a huge part of Greek society. By censoring this book, it's almost as if we're censoring the Greek culture, and I don't think that's fair. I don't like how we censor things simply because we think them to be taboo or "too different," whether it be the writings of Aristophanes and his ancient Greek culture or even modern texts. It just seems like we're doing a large injustice to the ancient Greek memory by censoring their work, because in the end, we're all people.

Lysistrata - Brawn vs. Brains

The classic showdown between brute force and intelligence. These theme is common to Lysistrata, with either side of the "abstaining from sex" and "pro-war" battle represented by either brawn or brains; the men represent the brawn and women the brains. This theme is supported right from the start of the play with Lysistrata's genius plan to end the war, suggesting the women's "brains." In order to combat the women's attempt to end the war, the men approach the femal stronghold, the Acropolis, with fire and smoke; the plan is to smoke out the women and place them under arrest... for taking the Acropolis and not having sex with them (haha). These "strong" men with fire are easily beaten down by the female forces, who all intelligently brought water to the fire-fight. The ease of their victory is recognized by the way they fought fire with water, rather than fighting fire with fire (the current situation the men are going through with the civil war, they're fighting fire with fire on the front). The brains obviously win this battle, although the unity of both strength and intelligence is un-rivaled in battle.

Lysistrata - Lost in Translation

There's a lot that bother's me in this play, and this is the blog where I complain. The things that bother me:
1-How the singing and poetry rhyme... Why does it rhyme? It shouldn't rhyme! If this is in any way an authentic translation of the origional Lysistrata by Aristophanes the poetry and choruses would most definitely not rhyme. It's near impossible, is impossible, to translate a rhyming text from one language into a rhyming text of another, and still have the translations mean the same thing in both languages. The fact that a lot of the poetry in this translation of the play rhymes suggests that the text has been significantly butchered... thanks for the true experience of Lysistrata Douglas Parker.
2-How the version is censored... Yet again, the butchering of a literary classic. I understand the the play has it's vulgarities, but I think they should have been left in the text in order to get the full understanding of the play.
3-The depiction of the Spartans... This really set me over the top. The Spartans had an elite, dominating, physical, culture that was definitely mis-represented in Lysistrata. In the play, these Spartans were represented as "country bumpkins," cast in a light of inferiority and stupidity. The Spartans were quite the contrary, and I think this representation of them is just as negative as modern day discrimination of different cultures.

Lysistrata - Abstinences Bring About Peace

So what's the best way to end war? It's a tough question, isn't it? There are so many variables in the "war equation" from distance of the fighting to reason for fighting, and many solutions have circulated over our country's warring years. Lysistrata's plan calls for a massive cooperative effort by all the women of Greece, ALL OF THEM, to abstain from having sex from all men, with the idea that men can't handle not having sex, and thus, giving in to the women's plans for peace. The idea is brilliant on paper, but I think the general feasibility of the plan is in question. First of all, all men who fight aren't typically fighting the enemy in their neighborhood, where their women are situated, they are usually off in rolling hills slicing and dicing the enemy. I think that the physical distance between the warring men and abstaining women to begin with is too large, it's almost as if men take abstinences when going to war simply because of the lack of women in war-like situations. Secondly, I'm unsure as to whether or not Lysistrata could unite all of Greec's women in order to achieve peace. Overall, the idea sounds pretty, but realistically I'm unsure as to its feasibility.

Lysistrata - The War Between the Sexes

In Lysistrata, I found the theme of "the war of the sexes" to be quite interesting. This was primarily because the theme involves the term "battle" which, ironically, the females in the play are trying to rid Greece of; the women "battle" the men in order to end the battles being waged by men on each other. I also find irony in the way the women and men nearly have a gender-role-reversal. The women in the play storm the Acropolis, a building of high importance to the Greeks, and hold themselves prisoner to the men. This is a very traditionally masculine thing to do, capture a building in protest. Not only do the women act more masculine, but the men act in a more "traditionally" (and by traditionally I mean stereotyped) feminine way, by begging for the abstinence to end and surrendering to peace in the end. So, in reality, the "battle of sexes" is between the more masculine females and more feminine men, with everyone winning in the end (no more war and much sex).

Finish

My reaction: it was pretty good :)
The ending of the play had a lasting effect on me, but so did Lorca's "The House of Bernarda Alba." Ending a play in death shows its significance, or has a big imapct on the viewer/reader. I think what really made "Hedda Gabler" a good play was the characterization of Hedda, she was pretty cool. The way she would just whip out a gun and point it at someone was crazy, that and the scene in which she burns the manuscript, that was eerie. What I hated was how Lovborg could just up and lose his manuscript like that, it seems like such a simple task to keep it close to oneself. In comparison, I really liked how simple and straightforward Lorca was in HoBA, but at the same time how intricate Ibsen's character Hedda was. Good read.

...twist

Hedda killed herself, it surprised me. It's pretty depressing thinking that the only way to escape a power structure/hierarchy is to just end your life, I feel like there are far more options to escape. Throughout the play it didnt really seem like Hedda had "control issues," considering how bossy she was towards other characters in the novel, and the way Tesman described how he spoils her. I guess it took some close reading to fully understand the intentions of all the characters in the play.

The Aunts

What is exactly the point of the aunts? Are they really only there just to show that Tesman has the backing of his family, and a representation of the "woman past." Ah, she just seems like filler.

Whoa

I just found an amazing similarity between "The House of Bernarda Alba" and "Hedda Gabler." Both Ibsen and Lorca have the same number of letters, five... I think they are the same people. All jokes put aside, I did notice that both plays have maids/butlers/service people. The difference between the maids is that in "The House of Bernarda Alba," all the maids complain and play a more important role in the play, while in "Hedda Gabbler," the maids obey to all orders. It's interesting, because all the characters have control over the maids, why does everyone complain about power!?!?

B-Rock

The thing that bothers me about Judge Brack is that he's a judge that doesn't really act like a judge should. he asks to be in a love triangle with Hedda, then goes out drinking with the boys all night. I think its a power thing. He's so cocky that he feels he can do anything and get away with it, and does. I don't like how he can get away with everything and still be un-biased as a judge. I guess thats what Ibsen was trying to achieve with this character though, maybe instill anger in the reader?

COLORS

I find it interesting how the "colors" in both plays read so far differ. "The House of Bernarda Alba" is so photographic, while "Hedda Gabler" is slightly more colorful. I specifically remember color being mentioned in Gabler, a reference to the autumn color, and also the amount of light that comes into the house. Lorca focuses much more on that black/white stark contrast stuff to get us to remember certain scenes. Ibsen doesnt need that, its easy to remember what happens in Gabler because a lot of it is so insane, such as Hedda pointing a gun at Brack. I'm showing bias, but eh, its my blog.

Manuscript

So what's in the manuscript? I've been wondering about it. I thought it would be cool if it were in reality something written by Thea Elvsted about how women can gain power in the current time period or future, a modern Machiavellian masterpiece, The Princess perhaps? But if so, then why would Hedda destroy the thing, why not read it if it explains how to attain power? Ah well, I thought it was neat.

The Most Important Motifs of All

The curtains and glass door. Hedda's obsessed with these things. At the beginning of every act, Hedda is seen looking out that glass door, and towards the end of the play plays with the drapery often. I think she looks out the door in a similar way that the sisters in the "House of Bernarda Alba" did, hoping to be free, and fantasizing about life outside of the house. I noticed that Hedda never goes outside during the play, she's always plotting from within her home. I think she likes pulling back the curtains because its something she has control over, hiow much light can enter a room, thats all she has to control. Eventually she'll pull the curtains on her life, committing suicide, shortly after the play comes to a close, pulling its own curtains.

Something I noticed...

I was just thinking about all the similarities between Hedda Gabler and The House of Bernarad Alba, and I came to question the significance of the titles of both these plays. So, the "power" characters in both plays are Bernarda and Hedda, and both of these names are seen in the title. The title of Ibsen's work focuses on one character, while Lorca's focuses on just the house of Bernarda, and moreover, her rule. Hm, interesting.

Tesman annoying you, uh?

So I'm done reading Hedda Gabler, but I'll keep my blog posts chronological to where we are in class as not to give anything away.
But what I really want to talk about is Mr. Tesman. Through act one, he comes off as a pretty nice guy, wanting the best for his new wife, Hedda. It's clear that he cares for everyone introduced in the act, his aunts, Hedda, his friends, and thats just great, but... he has this incredible habit of forming everything he says into a question, ending in either "uh?" or "hm?" I can't stand this, he just won't stop groaning and humming. And then when he's not asking questions, he's exclaiming exclamations, imagine! uh, hm, imagine, uh, hm, imagine, over and over and over. his reasoning for all of this? maybe he likes hearing other peoples feelings on different situations, and maybe he says "imagine" all the time because he thinks life is incredibly exciting and should be celebrated in this way. either way, i find his repetition to be just that, repetitious, especially for an "accomplished author" planning on writing a new book and becoming a professor. ugh?

Test

Just checking out how this thing works, chyeck.