Impressions of Walton.

So our blogging task this week was to blog on our impressions and opinions of Walton, the primary narrator of the novel of Frankenstein. I'm going to bullet point my opinions because just...yeah.

• The first letter Walton writes is to his sister, Margaret Saville (ew Saville) who is in England. He is informing her of his safe arrival and expresses both his elation and his fears towards his expedition to the North Pole. The letter basically recounts his life. Walton's expressions towards his expedition present his as a very enthusiastic character who wants to discover. However, his view and belief of the North Pole is quite mistaken as he mentions "there snow and frost are banished". Walton's geographical mistakes, although quite minor considering very little was known about the world when Mary Shelley wrote the novel, inserts an element of uncertainty towards the character. I believe it is used to cause the reader to question the reliability of Walton's judgement's towards other characters and the story as a whole. 
• His views of his expedition are quite poetic and romantic, he believes "the sun is for ever visible" and "diffuses a perpetual splendour." Walton's romantic presentation is not surprising as Frankenstein was written during the Romantic Period - a period which started in the late 18th century and carried on into the first few decades of the 19th century. So argue that Walton's letters highlight the influences which would have affected the writing of the novel rather than an opinion of the character.
• (Another non-opinion towards Walton, more how he allows the story to be told) Basically, Shelley's use of Walton's letters allows her to begin the novel in an epistolary style which creates a narrative frame as the narratives are essentially separate rather than linear and so become interdependent towards one another.  
• Walton appears fearful in regards towards his expedition and bids his sister , with what he hopes is not a final farewell. The characters fear and slight reluctance towards the expedition will present a sense of foreboding into the text and possible create tension and suspense as the reader may question why a character who is so full of passion towards learning and knowledge is so fearful of this trip. 
• There appears to be quite a few similarities between the characters of Walton and Victor and at times Walton appears to anticipate the character of Victor. This is shown through the characters rejection towards a life of domestic ease for a life of adventure and a quest for knowledge, both desire or want a sympathetic friend and both characters become isolated from family and friends on their own personal glory quests. 
• Basically, I feel Shelley has used the character of Walton to mirror the main character Victor and I feel she has done this to possibly create sympathy towards the main character as the mirroring suggests that this want for knowledge and desire to be amazing and glorified can affect everyone and is not just isolated towards the character of Victor.   
• The lengths of the letters and the tone should also be considered because the first two letters are quite similar, there is quite a relaxed feeling and tone towards them and are quite lengthly and detailed. However, the third letter is rushed and short - element of foreboding and creates tension and suspense for the reader - Walton meets the monster in the next letter.

5 Things I Learnt.

I was meant to do this blog weeks ago but never got round to it, but truthfully, I can't think of 5 things we've learnt, that's how bad it was for two weeks. But here is someone who did, so yeah...

http://hannahjadefraser.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/5-things-i-learnt.html

Opinions of Faustus in Act 2 Scene 3.

In today's lesson we looked at Act 2 Scene 3, in this scene we meet several new characters (can they be called characters when they're the Seven Deadly Sins?). So yeah, in the scene Faustus meets the Seven Deadly Sins as well as Lucifer and Beelzebub. Mephistopheles returned as well as the Good and Bad Angel.

Anyway, this blog is meant to be about our opinions and impressions of Faustus throughout the scene.

In the past several scenes, well this one and the one where he was signing his soul away, Faustus appears to go through four phases in a sequence. He starts off with doubt, then persuasion, resolve and then finally gains. This sequence of four phases appears to happen again and again, about three times in the scene where he signs away his soul.

The fourth sequence or time is slightly different though. Faustus starts off being doubtful, we can see this because he banishes Mephistopheles to hell, "curse thee wicked Mephistopheles." Additionally, Faustus mention of "repent" further shows his doubt as it suggests he no longer trusts Mephistopheles and regrets selling his soul.

Faustus then enters the phase of persuasion as the Good Angel and the Bad Angel arrive. For the first time in the play Faustus is able to acknowledge the Angels, most notably the Good Angel, "Who buzzeth in mine ears I am a spirit." Faustus ability to acknowledge the Angels may suggest to the audience that Faustus has lost his ability to repent because he has effectively become a spirit as he can hear the spirits. This means he cannot repent, like he appears to want to a few lines earlier, because he has already be judged and well damned because he sell his soul.

After the persuasion becomes the Resolve, this time Faustus is resolving towards virtue. Before Faustus does this he has an argument with Mephistopheles and their relationship thing reaches an all time low, with Mephistopheles leaving with "Remember this". Once he has left Faustus begins to resolve towards virtue as he calls on Christ to save his soul, "Ah Christ my saviour, seek to save distressed Faustus' soul." This is quite the climatic moment in the play as it will trick the audience, as they will believe, as they have done through each occurrence of this sequence of phases, that Faustus is about to be saved and he has the seen the error of his ways. However, the audience is about to be let down again as Faustus ultimately isn't saved. The re-occurrence of this sequence of phases and feelings will overall build tension in the audience as they will continually hope that Faustus will repent and are disappointed each time.

From resolve to repeated persuasion, except this time Faustus is being persuaded by the most powerful devils, Lucifer and Beelzebub, who appear along with Mephistopheles and terrify Faustus in to submission and away from his idea of repenting, "Pardon me in this, and Faustus vows never to look to heaven."

Faustus then begins to resolve once more, however this time it is towards evil, as Faustus vows to think and speak only devilish things, "to burn his scriptures, slay his ministers..."

After this, Faustus enters the final phase of the sequence, gains. Through Faustus submission he is rewarded with a pageant of the Seven Deadly Sins, each of which he questions (although he appears to become bored of them quickly and wants to move on to the next one, " What art thou the first...the second...") It becomes clear that Faustus ultimate curiosity is to see hell and return. The scene closes with Lucifer promising to deliver that hollow privilege and Faustus is thus committed to Mephistopheles again, "Come Mephistopheles."

Faustus change of emotions and feelings, and sometimes the re-occurrence of these feelings, presents and creates the opinion of Faustus as quite a fickle character. It also suggests that Faustus is easily controlled, which would be quite surprising and shocking as Faustus is meant to be of the highest intelligence and therefore above the ability to be controlled, honestly, if you take in to account his arrogance and pride it would make more sense if Faustus was the one controlling someone. However, it appears Faustus is naive and blind to the Devils ability to manipulate and control him - new impression formed.

However, on the other hand, it could be argued that Faustus becomes quite submissive because he is afraid of the devils, he is being scared in to submission. But, depending on how the play is performed this interpretation could become invalid as the presentation of the sins, most notably Gluttony, could be performed as quite comedic which would therefore suggest that Faustus has been mocking the religious idea of repenting and still doesn't truly value his soul (well the soul he gave away) and is not scared of the devils after all.

That's all I have so far, if I think of anything else I'll do a quick update of the blog. Done.

Comedy In Doctor Faustus.

Last English Lit lesson we looked at comedy and the idea of comedy in the play Doctor Faustus. We started off talking about comedy and what we thought it meant and was. Obviously everyone knows what comedy is, but it ended up being pretty hard to explain, I ended defining it as a "form of entertainment which makes you laugh or amuses you, a.k.a, HANNAH' Well, she is a VERY funny gal! We then talked about other things about comedy , such as what makes it comedy, so kind of a relief of tension, breaking of taboo's etc. 

After this we looked at the idea of Renaissance Comedy, and we wrote that comedy as a genre, during the Renaissance times, was more about mistaken identities, love and marriage. Then there was comedy in a tragedy, which was more about 'lower' status characters outwitting their 'higher' status characters, and was more like wordplay and slapstick. This in turn lead us on to the point of our lesson, comedy in Faustus. 

We looked at the final scene of Act 1, so Act 1 Scene 4, and discussed its comedic values and the point or worth of it being included in the play as a whole, as well as where it is in the play. This scene is in between to quite vital scenes, the one where Faustus meets Mephistopheles and before he sells his soul. DUN DUN DUN! Anyway, in the scene, the character Wagner is trying to convince the character, who we have just been introduced too, Robin, to be his slave basically. The situation between Wagner and Robin is meant to mirror that of Mephy and Faustus. However, although it seems to mirror the scene before, this scene is meant to be funny and well full of comedy. It was so funny, like really really funny...

After reading the scene we started quickly discussing reasons and possibilities as to why the scene as included and why it was placed in between two very serious and important scenes. I feel the main reason, and I sort of mentioned it earlier, for why the scene was included was because it mirrored or was parallel to the events between Mephy and Faustus and I feel Marlowe wanted to ridicule and mock Faustus. Marlowe does this successfully because he creates a contrast and comparison between the lowly "boy" that is Robin and the great Doctor Faustus. He does this by making Robin rejects Wagners offer of becoming his servant boy and so causes Fautus to appear foolish and well stupid. This would be comical to a Renaissance audience because, when we looked at their style and the criteria for their comedy, it mentioned lowly status outwitting higher status. So, although Robin didn't outwit Faustus personally, he technically outwitted Faustus with his overall decision,and so placed the lowly person as being more clever (?) than Faustus, who felt he was better than "divinity...medicine...law and theology."

Other slightly weaker interpretations as to why the scene was included are:

• It was used to relieve tension from the audience, as the two scenes surrounding this scene touch on what would have been a pretty heavy subject for them, e.g. the corruption of religion and association with the devil. 
• Its connected to relieving the tension, as I felt he wanted to lift the atmosphere because he included the scene as he was trying to break, what would have been considered during his times, as a taboo subject (Not entirely sure) 
• Faustus was trying to ridicule norms, so in this context I feel Marlowe was trying to ridicule the fear the audience feels towards certain parts of religion etc. (Not entirely sure myself again)

As you can probably tell I'm not really entirely sure or certain as to why this scene was included and why it was included where it was, but if I become more certain or we go over it more in class them I will blog about it. 

Done. 

The Legend of the Extra Devil in Faustus.

Well this will be a nice short blog on a rumour, or legend about an extra devil in the play or performance Doctor Faustus.

Basically, a long time ago, 16th Century times, the play Doctor Faustus gained an infamous reputation of having a real devil/ spirit on stage with the actors. This occurred around 1594ish, when a member of the audience claimed he had seen an extra devil character on stage, which in turn scared both the audience and the cast/actors. Supposedly, according to rumours and legend, the appearance of the extra devil occurred several times and caused many to believe the play was cursed, which in all honesty acted in Marlowe's favour and caused the play to become more popular.

Done.

Stage and Production.

Doctor Faustus is a play and therefore it needs to be performed in a theatre (yes THEATRE, not TheEter) to arrive at a clear interpretation of its meaning. However, depending on the performance and presentation, the interpretation of the meaning and of the performance as a whole may change/ be different. So, in the quick blog I will noting how different interpretations may occur in Doctor Faustus.

Marlowe wrote Doctor Faustus during the Elizabethan times, or, in a Literature view of History, the Shakespearean times. This means Marlowe most probably intended or designed his play to be performed on a Shakespearean type of stage, with a large so called "thrust stage" projecting into the auditorium. This type of stage would have caused the audience to feel involved and close to the action of the play, which may have been the intention of Marlowe, because, as a free thinker, he would have wanted the audience to begin to question their beliefs and their religion.

Whereas, today, although there are still stages which project in to the audience, like the Crucible, it is not as common as it would have been during Marlowe's day. The style of stage could possibly (although this is a long shot) affect the way in which Faustus is interpreted, as the distance between the stage and the audience will cause a modern day audience to feel less involved compared to during Marlowe's time and so don't become as caught up in Faustus action's and cause them to question their beliefs. I did say it was a long shot because people will interpret it differently because we have very different beliefs to 500-600 years ago and so the play won't be as controversial, rather than it being down to the stage but hey ho, I'd already started typing it.

The 3 main forms of symbolism on stage is:
 -Clothing
 -Props
 -Above (raised platform, area of the stage)

Clothing and Props are, truthfully, kind of obvious ones. The clothes the character is wearing and the objects they are either holding or using will create different interpretations and meanings, as they can show the wealth and status of a character as well as showing what is unfolding or about to unfold in the play. During the Marlowe's time, the clothes for characters would have been mostly donated by aristocrats.

The less obvious out of the three is the Above, however, when it was explained to us in class it made the most sense. Above refers to either a raised platform or even a balcony, just an area of the stage which is higher than the rest. It can create symbolism as placing a certain character on a elevated part of the stage can represent or symbolise or show their status and wealth, like props and clothes can, or it could even suggest they are possibly spirits or ghosts. However, when you read plays a stage direction may say "[ blah enters from above]" and therefore the character arrives from above or is above, so it can be symbolic or literal.

All 3 the factors mentioned above would be key or vital to a play when Marlowe was alive because the stage(s) were often bare. This meant that the audience would learn more from the way the character was dressed, stood and holding compared to what was the on the stage with the character.

We looked at a possible example of how Faustus could be presented in Act 1.1, where the Good Angel and the Bad Angel try to persuade and talk to Faustus. We were asked to draw out the stage in which we thought this scene should be presented to the audience. Like it would have been during Marlowe's time, I kept the stage bare apart from a bookshelf and a chair which were in a far corner of the stage. I included these because I thought it would help show further Faustus intellect but because they were at the far side of the stage in a corner I thought it would also show that he has started to turn his back on studying traditional forms of well studying. Then I had Faustus in the centre of the stage and had to slightly elevated stages just behind him, basically in line with each shoulder and an Angel would be on each stage, separated. One would be in all black the other in all white and Faustus in normal get up. Plain and simple. Faustus would not turn to either of the angels, wouldn't approach them or acknowledge them, however he would walk from one to the other to show his indecision.

Done.

Passion Play.

A passion play is a dramatic presentation depicting the Passion of Jesus Christ: his trial, suffering and death. It is a traditional part of Lent in several Christian denominations, particularly in Catholic tradition. The plays have their origin in the Easter Play which was born out of church ritual. The first passion play was performed in Latin in the 13th Century.

Frankenstein.

So I've finally gotten round to blogging about the novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley.

I knew Frankenstein quite well before I read the book and to be honest, it kind of ruined the novel for me. Don't get me wrong, it is still a good book but when you know what happens then it's not as fun to read. The only time it is good to know what happens in a book is Harry Potter because no matter it is still a good read.
So yeah, unlike The Bloody Chamber and Doctor Faustus I was a bit reluctant to read it because I already knew what was going to happen, however, a few things did still surprise me.

Everyone pretty much knows the story of Frankenstein but I'm going to blog about it anyway. So, Victor Frankenstein creates a monster, as he is obsessed with bringing people back to life and basically being God. He hates his creation so much and quickly regrets what he has done. His monster disappears somewhere and kills Frankenstein's little brother, Victor returns home. Justine is killed and he feels guilty. He meets the monster who tells him about his life for the past year or so and ask Frankenstein to make him a companion. Frankenstein goes to England and starts making the monster a friend but then destroys it. Monster see's and kills Victor's friend Henry. Frank is then imprisoned for this murder, but he is then let out. Goes home, marries Elizabeth. She dies on their wedding night. Frank's dad dies a little while later. Frank chases the monster to somewhere cold, struggles and dies on board a ship where he had told them his story. Monster is distraught at this and basically drowns himself or freezes to death. So yeah, its a very happy story fully of happy moments!

Now time for the real point of the blog! What I thought about it.

Overall I enjoyed the novel, I was just a little reluctant to read it at the start because I already knew the story and so was a little unenthusiastic because I felt there was little left to learn and discover. However, I was wrong!

One of the main factors which I really liked about Frankenstein was how it was told from different characters, there were the letters at the beginning, then of Frankenstein and then of the monster etc. I especially liked when the monster was retelling his year since he had left Frankenstein. I found this particularly interesting because it helped show how the monster became the way he was and how the solitude and rejection lead to him becoming resentful of humans. I felt it helped show a more human side to the monster and furthered the corruption of Frankenstein's actions. Truthfully, my favourite line from the novel was "I am malicious because I am miserable". It feels as if the monster isn't trying to justify his actions but explain them instead - he wants the suffering to stop.

One thing which surprised me in the novel was how much time passed, I'm not surely entirely how much time passed in the novel but I think it was near ten years. I don't whether Shelley was trying to show how long Frankenstein had to live in fear and misery over what he had done and his losses or whether she is trying to show the extent of the suffering which the monster had to receive. Additionally, I noticed that on every letter in the novel there was a day, e.g. 11th September however the year was left off, "17-", I'm not entirely sure as to why Shelley did this, part of me feels she might have done this to make the story have a more timeless feeling, suggesting that this sort of corruption could occur at any point in history, however, part of me doubts this because the century was still included. Oh well, I'll have to research it and find out.

Oh, one thing I thought about when reading the novel was the effect Frankenstein's mother's death had on him. I always, when we were watching the movie, assumed that Frankenstein created the monster because he wanted to be like God, he wanted to be able to make people immortal. However, I now also feel the loss of his mother would have had an effect on Frankenstein and therefore could have been a possible cause, as well as wanting to be known for achieving the impossible and such a medical feat, for creating the monster as the loss of his mother suddenly would have shaken and upset him and so maybe he feared death and feared the loss of his loved ones - I felt this was shown when Frankenstein thought about death, there was a quote about worms eating the flesh and how it disgusted him.

Anyway, yeah, it was a good novel and I much prefer the tale of Frankenstein now because I wasn't really a fan of the adaptations, I felt the story of the monster's past (sort of) helped create a back story to the monster and therefore helps create sympathy for him and show further how corrupt Frankenstein's actions were.

What is the audience supposed to think of Faustus...now?

**UPDATE** (on my previous blog of the same title)

We started going over Act 1 Scene 1 today in class and we were told to blog on how we now think the audience are supposed to think about Faustus. Before we went to the beginning of Act 1 Scene 1 I blogged about how I thought the chorus suggested for the audience to reserve their judgement of Faustus. However, I also suggested that they might feel sympathetic of the character Faustus because it was implied or suggested that their could be a downfall for him and that maybe we can't control what happens to us e.g. him.

Anyway, I now feel the audiences perception of Faustus will have completely changed. There were, now I look back on it (Prologue), hints of what I'm about to suggests.This is going to be in either note or chatty form because I'm too tired to do a complete essay style blog.

I now feel the audience is supposed to view Faustus as an arrogant, self-important and almost selfish character, as Scene 1 suggests that he turns down respected professions, such as law and medicine, because he cannot gain from them. Faustus views Law as "paltry legacies" which is "too servile and illiberal" for him and doesn't want to become a doctor (medically) because he has completed it, "hast thou not attained that end". I believe this would make Faustus appear arrogant and selfish to the audience because it suggests that if there is nothing to gain, power wise, from the profession then why would he do it? He wants to become a "deity" and not be controlled.

However, this could also make the audience sympathise/ feel sympathy for Faustus as it appears the audience, especially when it comes to religion and divinity, appear to have a better understanding of each subject compared to an intelligent man. This is shown through Faustus response to having a profession in divinity, as he suggests there is a Catch-22 element to it, "if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, why then belike we must sin and so consequently die". I believe this will create sympathy towards Faustus from the audience because it suggests that he has a limited and naive view of religion, as many will believe that Jesus can save them and therefore they are not doomed.

The audience may believe that Faustus is arrogant because he wants to be, and believes he can be greater than "Emperors and Kings" and not restricted like they are by their "several provinces". Faustus want of being greater than "Emperors and Kings" will be significant to the audience because during the Elizabethan times, the time in which Marlowe wrote the play, it was believed that the King, or the Queen, was chosen by God and was therefore of the highest power behind the Pope (depending on religion and form of religion) and God. Therefore, Faustus' belief and want of being greater than a King will make him appear arrogant to the audience because he is suggesting he can change and defy God's choices.

Another factor which I personally feel makes Faustus looks like a arrogant character is because he refers to himself in the third person, "settle thy studies, Faustus". I believe this would make the audience believe Faustus is arrogant because even men of great power, whether social, political or religious, don't refer to themselves in third person.

However, others may not agree with this view as it could be argued that Faustus is only referring to him self in third person, not because he is full or arrogance and self-importance, but because he is a rational man and he is trying to gain a different, almost outside perspective/opinion of his dilemma and therefore reinforces the belief or opinion of Faustus intelligence.

Faustus also appears to at one point mock religion because after picking up a book of divinity he laughs, "Ha" and so I believe this would suggest to the audience that Faustus believes he is above the law and belief of religion and can therefore laugh at it because he doesn't believe in its importance and significance and so furthers the sense of arrogance around Faustus. (Sorry that was badly explained!)

However, this could also be Marlowe's opinion of religion being mirrored or reflected through the character of Faustus as Marlowe was an atheist and believed in people questioning religion and the bible. Additionally, there is a stage direction for when Faustus "[picks up the book of magic]", whereas when he picked up a book on divinity there was no stage direction included and so I believe it reinforces the idea that Marlowe, and therefore the character of Faustus,  is trying to mock religion and show that he believes there are other more important books than the bible or that of "divinity".

I also believe the audience will now feel Faustus has an obsession with power as the qualities he most desires are "Of power, of honour, of omnipotence." Faustus desire of becoming omnipotent will be most significant to the audience as it was believed that God was omnipotent (had unlimited power) and so the audience may believe that the character Faustus is, for lack of a better word, power hungry.

**One thing I realised I hadn't mentioned for some reason about the audiences perception of Faustus from the Prologue is that he is intelligent man - I sort of mentioned it through the mention of his possible downfall, but yeah, mention of "he profits in divinity", "shortly graced with a doctors name" etc, implies Faustus is a man of intelligence and academia. **

So, as you can see it appears my opinion of what the audience are supposed to see Faustus has almost completely changed. I believe they are now meant to see that he is arrogant (therefore presents a possible fatal flaw?) and power hungry. He has remained intelligent and I still believe the audience is supposed to feel sympathy for Faustus, however it is now for different reasons.

Done!

What was the audience supposed to think of Faustus?

Personally I think you should stop reading this now and go and find some other blog because I can certainly promise you a terrible blog. Just don't bother. Stop.

What was the audience supposed to think of Faustus? 

I started answering this question in class, albeit terribly, after we had finished reading the Prologue of the A text of Doctor Faustus. Here is what I wrote, it is terrible.

I believe Marlowe wants the audience to reserve their judgements of Faustus and his actions and possibly sympathise or even empathise with the character. Marlowe achieves this by using the chorus to suggest to the audience to "patient judgements we appeal our plaud" which therefore suggests they should keep an open and possibly unprejudiced mind towards the character and the play.

I also believe Marlowe implemented this idea further  to the audience (of reserving judgement on Faustus) by causing them to question whether the lines of good and bad are as straight forward as they believe and are taught. The reference to "heavens conspired to overthrow" suggests that even those who are perceived and believed to be of the purest kind can make mistakes and commit acts of evil and wrong doing. This therefore suggests to the audience that any condemnation towards Faustus should be reserved as almost anyone could be tempted and commit sins.

However, others may believe that Marlowe wanted the audience to question their beliefs in God rather than reserve their judgements on Faustus because Marlowe was a known atheist and is suggesting or implying that God and heaven related beings can be as corrupt and evil as the Devil.

Furthermore, I believe the audience is supposed to sympathise the character of Faustus as the chorus/prologue includes a simple detail of his upbringing and hints at a possible demise. The audience is told of how Faustus is "born of parents base of stock" yet he "shortly was graced with doctor's name" but became "glutted". A downfall is not mentioned, just hinted and so leaves a question as to whether there is one. However, I feel Marlowe included this detail to create a sense of sympathy in the character because a man of such greatness and potential can lose it all through one "glutted" mistake or decision.

Finally, I feel Faustus' simple upbringing and start creates further sympathy for the character from the audience as it makes him the 'every man', and suggests to the audience that this mistake which Faustus made could happen to anyone, not just people who are of greater social standing.

*I also believe Marlowe is trying to hint to the audience that only so much temptation can be thrown at a man, or a woman, before they can't resist any longer and can therefore happen to anyone.

So, if you've read that you are probably regretting it because it was so badly written, which I know it was, but I honestly struggled to write a decent and well written answer to that for some reason, so sorry!

Why was there tension between Catholics and Protestants in Elizabethan times?

Here comes a little bit of my History knowledge, helped a little by Google, coming your way!

So, why was there tension between Catholics and Protestants in Elizabethan times? 

Well, Queen Elizabeth I was a Protestant, her elder sister Queen Mary had been a catholic. Before Elizabeth came to power, her sister had been trying to convert the country of England back to Catholicism, which had been the country's main religion before the Henrican Reformation, caused by, you guessed it Henry VIII. 

Anyway, there was tension between the two forms of religion because the Catholics followed the Pope whereas the Protestants rejected him as their spiritual leader. Additionally, Catholics felt that the church and his people, e.g. the Pope etc, could grant them salvation whereas the Protestants believed the only way of achieving salvation was through a direct relationship between themselves and God. 

Basically, Protestants and Catholics are the same form of religion, Christianity, but, they believe in different ways of showing their support and devotion to God and felt the way of the other religion was wrong and therefore shouldn't be followed. 

The Bloody Chamber, again.

So, I managed to blog about the majority of the short stories in The Bloody Chamber yesterday but, I still have a few remaining and so here it goes.

On to the Lady Of The House Of Love, I quite liked this one because at times it felt a little like Sleeping Beauty, very loosely, but with vampires! One factor which stood out the most to me, and I felt represented the characters pain the most was the caging of the larks and how she found pleasure and maybe even happiness through it because she herself is caged. I also liked how Clark presented the soldier, I felt he provided a stark contrast to other characters/voices from other stories, most notably The Werewolf , as he appeared to have no fear of the gothic and the supernatural because he did not believe in it, whereas the narrative in The Werewolf suggests that many people had a heightened fear of the supernatural.  

Next up is The Werewolf, this one was quite short, only about 2 and a half pages. Out of the tales which were similar to Red Riding Hood this was my favourite as I like how Clark portrayed the Grandmother. I personally like Clark's idea of making and presenting the Grandmother as a witch as in the traditional tale the Grandmother was presented as the frail old woman who couldn't protect herself from the wolf and so the twist of the Grandma being the wolf was quite an interesting spin compared to the classic.

Another factor which I liked in the story was Clark's use of detail when describing and showing the superstition people felt century's ago and how flimsy the claims were, "discover a witch - some old witch whose old cheese ripens when her neighbours do not, another whose black cat, oh sinister!, follows her about." I felt the narrative suddenly had a mocking and sarcastic tone to it, which I felt helped show further how scared people really were of magic.

The penultimate story, The Company of Wolves was another Red Riding Hood related tale. I felt this one fitted the traditional tale of Red Riding Hood, as the wolf disguised himself as the Grandmother. However, the ending was entirely different and not what I expected. She ended up getting into bed with the wolf. Standard, you know. I found Clark's presentation of the wolves interesting and I feel it helped Clark insert a feeling or a theme of feminism into the story. The narrative starts the story by telling us "the wolf is carnivore incarnate and he's as cunning as he is ferocious", whereas by the end, we are told the wolf is "tender". I feel this suggests that maybe wolves are not as fearful as first perceived and that if women stood their ground and became "cunning and ferocious" then wolves, (and men as well) would not be as dominant/ dominating.

Part of me did wonder whether the wolf-man idea was meant to be symbolic of anger and possibly describing how men want to control but they themselves need to be controlled and put in place. However, I soon realised it wasn't because there was the description of wolves and their eyes which "shine like golden flame" at the beginning of the story which I had forgotten about and therefore suggests that a wolf is not symbolic of anger but actually is a wolf.

I also found out that The Company of Wolves was turned in to a little movie and so I might give it a watch and see whether it is true to the tale.

The final short story from The Bloody Chamber is Wolf-Alice. This is a story all about how a girl called Alice had her life flipped and turned upside down, and I'd like to take a minute of you just sitting right there and tell you how she became a wolf...yeah I couldn't make it rhyme. Ah well. But anyway, the story is about a human feral girl who is raised by wolves, sound familiar?

http://listverse.com/2008/03/07/10-modern-cases-of-feral-children/

Anyway, I found Wolf-Alice to be an interesting character because she appears to be the polar opposite to the other female characters in Clark's story because she starts off as a beast and inhumane and then becomes or regains her humanity slightly, but still remains a beast. Whereas other characters, like The Tigers Bride, were human but begin to accept their animal and beastly side, or in The Werewolf, the Grandmother and the wolf are one. One final note, the c word is used once more.

One thing I forgot to mention about The Bloody Chamber and thought I would add in here instead of in the first blog is the role reversal and the irony. I liked how the mother and therefore the woman became the saviour and defeated man because the story felt as if it was set during a time when society was very patriarchal and traditional. I liked the irony of how the husband, the Marquis, was killed by a women who killed him with his own gun. Effectively, his weapon killed him.

And that is all for now, I'll blog about Doctor Faustus and Frankenstein at some point over the weekend. Woo. Yeah. Fun.

The Bloody Chamber.

Part of our homework over the summer was to not only read our selected texts which we are going to be studying over the next summer but, to also blog about our thoughts before, during and after the novels/texts/short stories.

I thought I would start with The Bloody Chamber. Truthfully, I didn't really have many thoughts before I read  The Bloody Chamber and other short stories - this however, intrigued me more and made me want to read it. Whereas, I found with another novel, Frankenstein, I was not as eager because I already knew the basic story of the novel and therefore meant there was little left to discover and read in the novel.

One of my first thoughts about The Bloody Chamber (the short story - not the entire book) was that it felt like a mixture of Rebecca with a hint of, dare I say it, 50 Shades of Grey. Within the first few pages I found a fair few comparisons between the main men of Rebecca and The Bloody Chamber. Both men had past wives, although there were 3 in The Bloody Chamber compared to just Rebecca in Rebecca. All wives had died suddenly and in a mysterious way, there was also a hint, or a feeling, that the husbands had contributed to the death of, if not killed, their wives. Which, they both had done in the end. Furthermore, both men seemed to want a younger, or a young wife compared to their past wives and someone who didn't have the confidence or knowledge compared to their deceased wives.

It wasn't only the men which helped me draw comparisons between the two stories, the head of maids of the houses in both the stories appeared to hate the "new wife" and weren't welcoming to the new lady of the house. Furthermore, both stories consisted of a grand house which was apart from the village and the rest of the world. The 'castle' in The Bloody Chamber however, was far more gothic than Manderley in Rebecca as the "castle lay at the very bosom of the sea" and "cut of from land for half a day" hints and shows how isolated the new wife became from the world.

The wives also appeared to be very similar at the start of the story, as both wives didn't feel worthy of their husbands and felt overshadowed and plain compared to their predecessors. However, as The Bloody Chamber progressed, the theme of feminism began to enter the story as it was the woman (the mother) who beat the man, whereas the second "Mrs De Winter" became stronger, she still doted upon her husband (which considering he wasn't as psychopathic as the Marquiss was in The Bloody Chamber is more understandable).

I should probably quickly explain about my 50 Shades of Grey comment. The short story does contain some eroticness and uses the c-word and so for a modern day comparison, it was an obvious.

Before I quickly rap up my blog about the short story and write about the other ones, I'll mention one of the main factors which I liked about this short story. I found the last line interesting "because it spares my shame." I find this particularly interesting because I don't feel the character has anything to be ashamed about, she was a young innocent woman who was not only abused by her husband but society (as were many women back in the days of the patriarchal society and view of not just children but women being seen but not heard.) I also liked how she and the blind man fell in love as it shows that people should be accepted for who they are, not what they are and how they look.

Now I'll quickly write about the other short stories. My favourite out of all the stories in The Bloody Chamber was the "The Courtship of Mr Lyon" - I felt this was told in a very clever way. Usually, when I think of Beauty and the Beast I think of a man who shunned human life and resented all humans because he wasn't one any more and was therefore cruel and horrible to any human who crossed his path. Don't get me wrong, Mr Lyon does get rid of all human life but he doesn't hate on humans, he does a good deed and helps those who are in need - even though he does want something in return if they do a foot wrong. I feel it humanises the Beast.

I also like how Clark has shown that no human is perfect. In the traditional tale of Beauty and the Beast, the Beast was a vain and narcissistic man, and so was punished for this, whereas every other character was normal, maybe even slightly angelic. However, in "The Courtship of Mr Lyon" we see how Beauty, when she is gifted with wealth becomes ever so slightly selfish and vain, she becomes less caring about those around her - she becomes, as it says "petulant". I like how Clark has portrayed Beauty in this way because it shows that the Beast is not as terrible as first perceived, I feel the author is suggesting that anyone, man or woman can be seduced by wealth and greed and can forget about who gave it to them.

Finally, I loved the mention of how Mr Lyon's garden was "still possessed by December" because I feel it shows the Beasts entrapment and was symbolic of how he felt when Beauty left, like all life and love had left him and so he felt cold and empty and dead.

The third story was the Tigers Bride, I was not as keen on this story when I compared it to The Courtship of Mr Lyon, the ending reminded me of Shrek because instead of the Beast becoming human, the woman becomes a beast as well, kind of like Princess Fiona staying as an Ogre. One thing I did like about the story was how it played on the theme of corruption and greed and showed how women were often objectified and perceived as possessions (and used and given away like one) by their fathers and by the male gender in general.

Puss in Boots was just funny, I found the sometimes sarcastic narration from the cat hilarious and I found it to be quite a light hearted story compared to the others. Even though the story is one of entrapment and death I found it quite funny. I felt the story was not as traditional gothic in the same sense as The Bloody Chamber because the narration from the cat added comedic qualities to the story.

Truthfully, I think I need to read The Erl-King again, I am still unsure about the story being told and how it could relate to a gothic theme. I mean there is the obvious entrapment of the bird-women in cages against their will and their singing is actually their weeping, but I just don't feel it is as clear in its purpose and story as the other short stories in the novel and so I'll probably blog on that one a little later when I'm more certain about it.

Next up is the Snow Child which is just wrong and Ew and no and just a no go. I feel Clark plays on Freud's Oedipus complex or whatever it is called, where the mother is jealous of the daughter and vice versa and views her as a threat. However, the little bit which is just Ew and wrong and gross is clearly not needed, I personally don't feel it adds anything to the story.

I'm going to blog about the remaining short stories tomorrow because it is late and I don't really have the energy to blog about the remaining stories properly and so I shall do them tomorrow because I only have two lessons tomorrow, wahoo! So I'll have more time tomorrow to quickly finish this blog. Hope you enjoyed the long 14 paragraphs, mwahahahaha.

A Level Gothic Authors.

So I've recently finished reading my A2 level English Literature books and thought I should do a quick background check and blog on the authors of the 3 novels/plays/short stories I've just read.

The first, and most probably famous, of my texts, is Frankenstein by Mary Shelley (1818 text).

Mary Shelley:

Mary Shelley was born on the 30th August 1797 and died on February 1st 1851.
She is best known for her gothic novel Frankenstein.
Her husband was called Percy Bysshe Shelley, and she, on occasions, edited and promoted her husbands work as her husband was a famous romantic poet and philosopher.
Her farther was political philosopher William Goodwin.
Her mother was a protestant and feminist Mary Wollstonecraft.
She also wrote Valperga (1823) and The Last Man (1826).  
She died at the age of 45. She died in her sleep, due to what her physician assumed was a brain tumour.
Shelley was only 19 when she wrote and completed Frankenstein.
The idea of Frankenstein came to Mary Shelley as the result of a ghost story contest between Mary, her husband, the poet Lord Byron and Dr Jon Polidori. It came to her in a dream.

Many people have also found it quite ironic how Mary Shelley's fiction scientist Victor Frankenstein found his name forever fused with the name of his creation and how Mary Shelley is now forever associated with her greatest creation; her novel Frankenstein.

Now on to my next author, Angela Carter, who wrote several short stories, her most famous being The Bloody Chamber.

Angela Carter:

Angela Carter was an English novelist and journalist.
She is most commonly known for her feminist and magical realism works.
In 2008, The Times ranked Carter 10th in their list of "The 50 Greatest British Writers since 1945".
During her childhood Angela Carter was evacuated as a child to live in Yorkshire with her maternal grandmother.
She battled anorexia when she was a teenager.
She studied English Literature at Bristol University and then became a fellow in creative writing at Sheffield University.
She married twice, first in 1960 to Paul Carter, she used the proceeds from her Somerset Maugham Awards to leaver her husband and relocate for two years to Tokyo, Japan.
The Bloody Chamber was written in 1979 along with her influential essay The Sadeian Woman and the Ideology of Pornography, which hints about her ideas behind the message in The Bloody Chamber.
She died in February 1992.

And for my final author, it is none other than Christopher Marlowe, who created the play, Doctor Faustus.

Christopher Marlowe: 

He was born in 1564 and died in 1593.
His father was a shoemaker.
He was educated at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.
He was a dramatist, translator and a poet.
Some of his most famous plays and books were: Doctor Faustus and Tamburlaine the Great.
There is great mystery surrounding the death of Marlowe. A warrant was issued by the Church's Star Chamber for the poet's arrest on charges of heresy, which carried the death penalty, but, before Marlowe faced the interrogation and possible torture, he died.
His plays were produced to great acclaim by the Lord Admiral's company.
He also mixed with the dramatists and actors of the day. such as Shakespeare, Edward Alleyn and Nashe.
Many believe he influenced Shakespeare, however, this has not been proven conclusively.

I'll be blogging over the next week or so about the texts I've just read because if I started tonight I would not finish. So yeah, over the next week I'll blog about the texts I've read for my Eng Lit course.

1931 Frankenstein.

- The 1931 version of Frankenstein was directed by James Whale.

- Frankenstein was played by Boris Karloff and, despite the rumours, it was NOT his first movie role. Karloff had stared in hundreds of films and had been a silent screen actor since the 1920's. He had made / been in 50 films before Frankenstein made him a star.

- Also, despite popular belief, the 1931 production of Frankenstein was NOT the first telling of the story by the movie industry. In 1910, there was a 10 minute long version of Frankenstein and there was another version in 1915 called Life Without Soul.

-  "Castle Thunder" - a thunderclap originally recorded for the 1931 film Frankenstein has been featured in countless films and TV shows. The famous sound effect can also be heard every day at Disneyland and Walt Disney World, in the Haunted Mansion.

- Colin Clive created life in "Frankenstein", but he himself only lived another 6 years and died in 1937 at age 37.

- The little girl who was thrown into the river in Frankenstein lived the longest of all the cast. Marilyn Harris was 75 upon her death in 1999.

Freud's Oedipus Complex.

The Oedipus Complex is a term used by Sigmund Freud in his theory of psycho-sexual stages of development to describe a boy's feelings of desire for his mother and jealousy and anger towards his father. Essentially, a boy feels like he is in competition with his father for possession of his mother; he views his father as a rival for her affections and attention.

According to Freud, the boy wishes to possess his mother and replace his father, who he views as a rival for his mothers affections. The Oedipal complex occurs in the phallic stages of psycho-sexual development between the ages of three and five. This stages serves as an important point in the formation of sexual identity.

For the boy to develop into a successful adult with a healthy identity, the child/boy must identify with the same sex parent in order to resolve the conflict. Freud suggested that while the primal id wants to eliminate the father, the more realistic ego knows that the father is much stronger.

In order to resolve the conflict, the boy identifies with his father. It is at this point that the super- ego is formed. The super-ego becomes a sort of inner moral authority, an internalization of the father figure that strives to suppress the urged of the id and make the ego act upon these idealistic standards.

Thought of one aspect of Death of a Salesman (page 83)

Biff burning his University of Virginia trainers 

One aspect that stood out to me whilst I was reading Death of a Salesman (up to page 83) was when Bernard tells Willy about Biff burning his University of Virginia trainers when he came back from Boston. This stood out to me because throughout the play Biff has appeared to be the antagonist and, despite Willy not actually knowing of this action, it appears that Biff has burnt his trainers to be spiteful to his father, especially since Bernard asks, "What happened in Boston Willy?". Furthermore, this point appears to be backed up by the fact that Bernard had mentioned earlier (a page before) about Biff not going to summer school, "Did you tell him not to go to summer school?", to which Willy replied, " I begged him to go, I ordered him to go!"
 thus suggesting that not only did Biff turn away from his dream (and Willy's) of being a successful man -in society's eyes- but he did it to anger and upset his father.

This also stood out because earlier in the play it appeared that Biff knew something about The Woman, "Biff [sharply contained] 'What woman?'" and therefore, along with the mention of Willy in Boston, suggests/implies that Biff may have found out about The Woman, or at least suggests that something Willy did affected and upset Biff enough to retaliate and become the antagonist of the play.

Additionally, it stood out to me because Biff's action of burning his University trainers appeared to be symbolic or a metaphor of Biff's dream . I believe it is meant to be representative of his feelings and how Biff feels his dreams have gone up in flames, thus the burning of his shoes. I also feel the burning of the shoes could be symbolic of the link between Willy and Biff and their relationship, almost as if Biff is burning his ties with his dad. This is because throughout the play is has appeared that the only connection Biff and Willy had was over sharing the dream and belief that Biff could succeed and be amazing, and so it appears that Biff's burning of the shoes is how he can disconnect himself from his Dad and his life before being the ranch man 'out West'.

Other points:

• Even though Willy has just lost his job his pride still stops/prevents/inhibits him from accepting the job from Charley, 'What's the matter with you? I've got a job', 'I'm strapped. I was just fired.'
• Happy's actions and treatment to the Girl - appeared to be bragging at time to Stanley, proud that he could get any girl he wants.
• Biff's action of stealing the fountain pen from Bill Oliver and then being told by Happy to lie to Willy.
• Willy being proud of Bernard, even though in his memories or flashbacks of when Biff was on the football team he mocked and hated Bernard and claimed he would be a failure.

Death of a Salesman - End of Act 1.

Overall, I feel the end of Act 1 helps draw the play and connect certain aspects of the play together, such as Willy's impact on the family and himself. Additionally, I also feel the end of Act 1 not only helps cement certain idea's/characteristics of each of the 4 main characters but it also helps prepare the audience for what is to come (and in many ways what to expect) in Act 2.

Main points/impressions made at the end of Act 1:

• I personally feel the end of Act 1 shows how little Linda truly knows Willy as she claims or states to Biff that it "takes so little to make him happy" and that Biff can make Willy happy through just saying "good night". I feel this shows that Linda knows little about Willy and his problems as throughout Act 1 it appears that Willy is never really happy or grateful for anything in his life as he is always criticising himself and others.
• Additionally, the end of Act 1 in many ways presents Biff as the tragic hero of the play because despite being blamed by Linda and Happy for Willy's problems "What'd you have to start that for?"and "Biff, his life is in your hands." he actually acts and tries to prevent Willy from committing suicide "[Biff wraps the tubing around his hand and quickly goes up the stairs.]" whereas Linda is more scared about hurting his pride than saving Willy's life, "How can I insult him that way?" (also presents Linda as quite an unrealistic character).
• Another impression I made of Biff during the end of Act 1 was that he appears to be taking on the responsibility and role of Willy in the house and is trying to make everything right, this is also shown through the action of him taking the pipe. It is also shown through 
• Furthermore, Biff is also presented as the most realistic character out of the family, as he acknowledges that he is no good in business, "Mom, I don't fit in business" whereas characters like Happy believe Willy's views that popularity will get you far, "...you never tried to please people."
• The final words of Willy appear to be quite childlike to me, "Gee, look at the moon moving between the buildings" and I feel it might suggest that there is a further downfall of Willy's state of mind in Act 2. 
• Additionally, Willy says "Everything'll be alright." which will create suspense and a sense of unease as the audience will know that this statement is too good to be true. 
• Finally, Happy appears to be craving and wanting attention as he randomly tells his mother that he is going to "get married soon", and suggest that he may be slightly jealous of Biff as he holds the attention of both his parents. 

Are Willy's self-destructive actions caused by an attempt to act ethically?

Willy's self-destructive actions:

• Willy constantly compares himself to others - especially  to his elder brother Ben.
• Denial of his true ability - Willy constantly puts himself down over certain tasks/jobs he can't do and belittles himself over tasks he can do, such as physical tasks (such as when he tells Charley he put up the ceiling he answers 'what's the difference'.)
• Willy cheats on Linda - this not only makes Willy feel guilty but it also ruins his relationship with Biff as he finds out about the affair.
• Willy constantly imposes his dreams upon his sons (Biff and Happy) and so when they fail - such as Biff failing his maths test- he feels as if he himself has failed once more. ' I never in my life told him anything but decent things.'
• Willy is also very self-conflicted and hypocritical, as he wishes he had taken Ben's job offer 'What a mistake. He begged me to go.' BUT then refuses Charely's job offer, 'What the hell are you offering me a job for?'
• Willy is also quite self-deluded at times, we can see this through the stage directions as it suggests a dream like state of Willy's mind, ' The entire setting is wholly, or, in some places, partially transparent.' - therefore suggesting that Willy is harming himself by his refusal of reality.
• Willy also emphasises how much money he earns, 'Well, I - I did - about a hundred eighty gross in Providence. Well, no - it came to - roughly two hundred gross the whole trip.' This harms Willy as overall it will damage is self-esteem as he has to accept that he has earnt less than he first let on.

Hegel's theory:

'In the very attempt to act ethically, they thereby end up not only acting unethically because they are violating the complementary ethical law but moreover destroying themselves. Through this self destruction, however, the original ethical unity of the polis is restored and affirmed.'

So protagonist wants to do something right but does something wrong to achieve it.

Therefore, I believe (certainly when it comes to his children) that Willy's self-destructive actions are caused by an attempt to act ethically. For example, Willy imposes his views and ideals upon his sons, Biff and Happy, which in turn leads to his children becoming and feeling confused about life and what they want. This is shown through stage directions, 'He, like his brother, is lost, but in a different way' and through Happy's achievements of owning his own 'apartment and car' but not feeling happy.

Some may argue that this is unethical of Willy as he is pushing his children into the same fate as him, one full of a sense of failure and lack of achievement. However, I believe that Willy was acting ethically as he truly believes in the American Dream and that hard work in the business world will help you achieve happiness and success, and so therefore he is only trying to set his children on to what he believes is the right path for them achieve a better life.

However, I person feel that some of Willy's self-destructive actions are not caused by an attmept to act ethically, as they appear to be very selfish and have no real cause or need behind them. such as Willy having an affair on Linda. I believe this self-destructive act is not an attempt to act ethically as Linda cares and loves Willy very much, additionally, the affair only ends up hurting people - such as Biff- so Willy can get a slight ego boost.

My first impressions of Happy and Biff.

First impressions of Biff:

• Biff appears to be quite a defeated character, this is shown through stage directions as he 'seems less self-assured'. Additionally, Biff's defeated attitude is showed through a contrast between the brothers, 'never allowed himself to turn his face towards defeat'. This suggests that Biff has either accepted defeat or he has seen/experienced more rejection in his life. 
• Biff also appears to be the most realistic character in the play due to his individual (and realistic) view on the American Dream 'its a measly manner of existence...and still that's how you build a future'.
• However, at the same time, Biff appears to be quite the idealist, this is not only shown through Happy's own view of Biff 'You're a - you're an idealist!' but also through Biff's dream of  owning his own ranch and living in the symbolically free west (which was the dream for many during the Great Depression) - '...maybe we could buy a ranch. Raise cattle, use our muscles.' 
• Additionally, his name appears to symbolic of who Biff might be/appears to be. From the stage directions we know that Biff has quite a defeated attitude/air to him and so, along with his name, suggests that he has experienced an event/action that has 'biffed' him, and made him less 'self-assured'. (We discover late that he has been symbolically/metaphorically punched by his father when Willy burns his trainers in a 'furnace' showing that his dream has been taken away etc.)
• Biff also appears to be self-critical, ' I've always made a point of not wasting my life...and I know all I've done is waste my life'. Furthermore, Biff appears to receive the most criticism -especially from Willy- in the play so far. (could also argue this shows that he a realistic character as he can see his own faults and failings). 
• Additionally, Biff appears to have a moral compass (appears to be a decent character) because he appears to be truly upset about his father's condition/deterioration '...a look of pain crossed Biff's face' whereas the character Happy (who places the blame of Willy's problems on Biff) appears more selfish. 
• Furthermore, Biff appears to less materialistic character compared to Happy, as he appears to appreciate certain/natural beauty ' nothing more inspiring or beautiful than a new colt'.  
• Appears to be the non-stereotypical character of the play as he is against or can see the problems of the American Dream - ' And still- that's how you build a future.'  

Also appears to be the possible antagonist of the play, but despite being the antagonist to his Dad (Willy), he still wants him to be proud of him and appears to be insecure at time about how his father feels about him, 'Why does Dad mock me all the time. Everything I say there's a twist of mockery on his face. I can't get near him.' "What happened Biff? Where's the old humour, the old confidence?' suggests that Biff has been affected by Willy's criticism.

First impression of Happy:

• First impression of Happy is that he appears to be quite a selfish character as he places Willly's illness on his brother, 'I think the fact that you're not settled...still kind of up in the air', and appears to be more concerned about how it is affecting him 'it's getting embarrassing' and not Willy.
• His name appears to be ironic and maybe symbolic as it suggests that Happy won't be happy because he seems to follow his dad's imposed idea's of a dream and therefore, may lose his mind/dementia and never feel truly content with life and so therefore won't be happy. 
• Additionally, Happy, like many others, appears to have achieved some form of success, 'my own apartment, a car, and plenty of women...' but is not happy with what he has '...and still god dammit I'm lonely' - He wants more and therefore appears to be a stereotypical character of those who follow the American Dream.  
• He believes (or follows) the American Dream, and therefore appears to be not as realistic as Biff is. (However, could argue he is more realistic through that fact that he is not chasing an idealist dream/world like Biff is.)
• Like Biff, Happy is also unsure about his life and the direction he wants it to take. Shown through stage directions, 'like his brother, is lost but in a 'different way.' and so suggests that even the American Dream can't promise happiness.  

Aristotle.

Mimesis:
Mimesis is the 'imitation of an action' according to 'the law of probability or necessity'  and in Aristotle's opinion is shown through drama and actions instead of being told, through/like a narrative.

Aristotle also believed that tragedy was more relevant to the audience because they could relate to the 'cause and effect chain' of tragedy. 
  
The Incentive Moment:
Aristotle believed that a plot must be whole with a beginning, middle and an end. The Incentive moment is the beginning because it starts the cause and effect chain without being dependent on other factors.

The Dénouement:
The Dénouement is the 'rapid cause and effect chain' from the climax (middle) to the resolution (end). - the unravelling of the play etc.

The Dues ex Machina:
The Dues ex Machina means the plot must be 'complete' and must have a 'unity of action' - Aristotle basically means that the plot must be self-contained and must not have been effected by outside intervention to be able to bring about a rapid and tidy conclusion.

The Plot: 
A plot cna either be simple or complex. Aristotle believed that the more complex the plot the better, as simple plots tend to only have a 'change of fortune' (catastrophe), whereas, complex plots tend to have both 'reversal of intention' (peripeteia) and 'recognition' (anagnorisis) connected with the catastrophe.

Peripeteia occurs when a character produces an effect opposite to that which he/she intended to produce, while anagnorisis is a change from ignorance to knowledge producing love or hate between character/person destined for good or bad fortune. Aristotle argues that the best plots combine the two as part of their cause and effect chain, which in turn creates the catastrophe, leading to the final scene of suffering.

Adonis.

Adonis in Greek mythology, was the most beautiful of young men. He was the son of King Cinyras of Cyprus and his daughter Myrrha. The god's turned Myrrha into a tree, and out of her wood/bark, Adonis was born. However, because of the fact that Adonis was the reuslt of incest, he was hidden in the underworld and looked after by Persephone (the daughter of Zeus, she was the Queen of the Underworld as she was abducted by Hades).

When Aphrodite saw him, she fell despertately in love, and when she was killed while hunting by a wild boar, she pleaded with Zeus to bring him back to life. Zeus agreed to get the young man back, but he has to stay in the under world during winter to and be with Aphrodite during the summer, thus making the vegetation die in winter and blossom in summer.

I don't really know what he has to do with the theme of tragedy or the theories of tragedy but I thought I'd research him as you said too.

Arthur Miller.

Arthur Miller was an American playwright and essayist, who was a prominent figure in American theatres. Some of his most famous plays and drama's are Death of a Salesman, A View from the Bridge and All My Sons.

Miller was born in Harmlem, New York in 1915, to a Jewish Polish family. Before the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression of 1929, his father owned a woman's clothing store which employed over 400 people. However, duirng the Depression, his fahter's business was hit quite hard/badly and was ruined, meaning the family moved to a house in Brooklyn. Many believe that his house in Brooklyn is a model for the Loman's house in Death of a Salesman.

Miller attended the University of Michigan, where he graduated in English in 1938. During his time at University, he was awarded a prize for playwrighting, along with Tennessee Williams. After University he returned to New York and began a career wrighting for the radio.

(Tennesee Williams - was also an American play writer, who wrote short stories, memoirs, novels and essay's.)

During his lifetime, Miller married 3 times, his first marriage was too his college in 1940, they had two children together. Then in 1956 he married the famous actress and singer, Mariyln Monroe, however, they were divorce by 1961. Aruther then remarried in 1962.

Miller died in February 2005, and was considered to be one of the greatest dramatists of the 20th century, with many claiming he was the last great practitioner of the American Stage.


The Great Depression and the Wall Street Crash (1929):

The Great Depression was a severe worldwide economic depression and downturn of the 1930's. It was the longest, most widespread and deepest depression of the 20th century.

The depression originated in the U.S, starting with the fall in stock prices which lead to the stock market crash of October 29th, 1929 (known as Black Tuesday) - The Wall Street Crash. After the crash of Wall Street, the depression spread acorss the globe. In the U.S, unemployment rose to 25% and farming and crop prices fell by approx 60%.

The American Dream:

The idea of the American Dream is that, through a combination of hard work, courage and determination, prosperity can be achieved- these values came to America with the early settlers and were passed on to later generations.

Just before and during the 20th century, the Dream became that of industry and capitalism, compared to the idea that you could become rich quick in the American Gold Rush in the 19th Century. Success such as John D Rockerfeller showed that talent, intelligence and willingness to work hard were all that was needed to achieve the dream. Additionally, the poor were penalised as their poverty was seen as proof of their lazines; the dream does not appear to take in to account other factor, such as a person's education and upbringing, which can have an effect on a person's potential and overall success in life.