A Blog

Travel, study (got this thing for my English class), running, and all things important to me.

[lifeofhunt]

If you sleep eight hours per day and you live to be 60, you’ve slept for 20 years. That is reason enough for me to get up the first time my alarm goes off.

(viafawun)

this is good. so good that it hurts my feelings.

(via lidvonluculent)

[ja-n-a]

[erinannelore-blog]

The Perception of Order Out of Dissonance

“Perception in itself a Gain Replying to its Price— (…)” - Perception of an object costs, Emily Dickinson

Honestly, I really had to dig around for something to write about today.  It took a little while before I came across this poem and saw that there was more depth to it than I had originally seen. I’ve always looked at this poem in the context of realizing the value of something after it’s been lost, but then there was a whole other perspective of the poem that I had overlooked in the process. The poem speaks on another level pertaining to the benefits of paying a price; that sometimes a cost allows us to see the importance of a particular thing or situation.

Recently, in Psych 1, we were going over the concept of cognitive dissonance.  One way we apparently deal with cognitive dissonance is through a ‘justifying effort’.  That is to say, when someone goes through a rough time, or pays a particular price in order to gain an intended reward, they begin to view it as a reason to enjoy the reward better.  When we do this, we are creating a sort of order by which we can accept a cost.  It’s a coping mechanism, but it can actually be quite poetic.

In the case of Stockholm’s syndrome, for instance, a kidnap or hostage victim develops positive feelings towards their captor.  While their captor may not be a reward as we see it, their perception of their captor seems to change as if to justify whatever price they feel that they’ve paid during their capture, like order has returned as a response to whatever dissonance they must have faced.

[erinannelore-blog]

A Story Yet to Be Written

“You must claim where you come from and look deep into it.  Come to honor and embrace it, or at least, accept it.” - Natalie Goldberg, Writing Down the Bones

I have roommate who grew up in New Delhi and has to be one of the smartest, fastest learners I’ve ever known.  She’ll watch me sit in my chair, folding origami figures.  While it might have taken me weeks to memorize each of the folds, it’ll take her all of five minutes to copy my steps. But whenever we stay up late talking about nothing in particular, she tells me, “You’re so interesting, and I’m so boring.” In a sort of awkward rebuttal I say, “No, look at yourself.” As someone who’s never grown up anywhere in particular, I find her life amazing.  She doesn’t know that I want to hear all about her childhood friends.  The aunties and uncles who may or may not be related, but she’s know them too long to care.  How she used to study for the IB, and what it’s like to speak two languages interchangeably.  What it’s like to spend so many years with the same people and not go completely crazy. And then I try to envision what my life must look like from her point of view. I grew up constantly moving around the Pacific and Asia, I have family in Europe, and I’m an American.  You’d think after all of this time, I’d appreciate how valuable these experiences are, but somewhere along the lines I grew numb to them. She and I are two completely different people with different backgrounds and ideas of what’s ‘interesting.’ As students, we’re professional observers.  And as writers, we sell ideas.  And oftentimes, we become oblivious to anything but what we observe, so that’s what we end up selling.  We write and we forget the perception from which we’re writing. We create characters we’ve never met and scenes we’ve never seen, trying to thicken our plot and blot out the ‘boring.’ But honestly, when is the last time you’ve really taken time to reflect on who you are and your place in the world? What writers, students, and people in general fail to miss is that what is “interesting” and what is “important” is often right in front of them.  There things we miss in our own lives when we are too preoccupied examining other people’s lives. This is what happens when we classify what is ‘interesting’ as ‘only the things we’re not personally familiar with.’   If we look back to Mignolo’s “Epistemic Disobedience”, we see a similar trend arise, though more specifically directed towards colonialism.  Mignolo demonstrates how, through the lens of our own perception, things may be expressed differently than they are seen by other people. He begins arguing from the point of linguistics, saying, “[conversation] requires a frame, that is, a context familiar to all participants (…).” (2) All the more, then, do we need to “de-link” ourselves from our own perspectives to serve our audience.  We have to try to figure out what they find interesting and therefore where we’re coming from. Naturally people aren’t willingly going to write about something that they think is boring - at least, not by choice. So the issue then becomes finding something interesting to write about. People look long an hard to find some material to rebuke this type of writers’ block.  However, they fail to look in the most accessible place to find something which they can be passionate about - themselves.“Often we can look to someone else’s life as interesting and out life as dull.  We lose our center and are lopsided because we are looking for something we think we don’t have.” (1) In a sort of identity crisis, people forget that we’ve already been given a story to write about.  Once in a while, we have to look up from our pen and paper and get a good look at what’s been going on around us the whole time.

Citations: 1. Goldberg, Natalie. "Going Home." Writing down the Bones: Freeing the Writer within. Boston: Shambhala, 1986. N. pag. Pdf. 2. Mignolo, Walter D. "Epistemic Disobedience, Independent Thought and De-Colonial Freedom." Theory, Culture & Society 26.7-8 (n.d.): n. pag. Duke University, Dec. 2009. Pdf.

[kabrading]

[erinannelore-blog]

Mornings are really the best

[erinannelore-blog]

Analysis Review

Text: Analysis 2 Focus: Determining the difference between judgement (on my part) and fact, and writing the essay in such a way that focuses more on the text than personal biases against the characters Area 1: During this essay, I suggested that perhaps both Prospero and Antonio had character flaws that had affected their judgement, and that they were therefore unfit to be royal leaders.  “Given Prospero’s neglect and the selfishness of his brother’s actions, it can be argued that the actions of both make fit and unfit royalty.”  However, this could have been rephrased in such a way that more clearly reflected ideas drawn from observations rather than personal biases.  For instance, “Given Prospero’s neglect and the self-involved choices of his brother, it can be determined that the actions of both characters seem more self-directed than directed towards serving the people whom they wish to obtain power over.”  While this is a judgement on the nature of both characters, it would be supported by texts stated earlier in the essay, and is (although it sounds negative) a neutral judgement rather than one based on personal biases.  This addresses section C of the Pitfalls chart, which refers to the analysis’s relativity to the text. Area 2: I also made the mistake of judging the character Gonzalo as a purely good character while failing to consider any other argument to the contrary.  Moreover, I called him a ‘wise’ chancellor without having actually backed it up by text.  This was because I was basically judging Gonzalo’s character off of his description on Sparknotes. “The division between rightful power and granted power is further drawn through the character of Gonzalo, the wise chancellor.”  Rather than judging Gonzalo as the ‘good guy’ of the play, I should have looked deeper into his nature and used more contextual descriptions of his character. “The division between deserved power and granted power is further drawn through the character of Gonzalo, who cares for those characters whom he has no reason to believe can serve him in return,” might work better in this case.  The statement that, “[Gonzalo] cares for those characters whom he has no reason to believe can serve him in return,” can at least be backed up with textual evidence. Area 3: My final paragraph highlighted a third area of the Pitfall chart: transitions.  The transition into the last paragraph is extremely abrupt and awkward.  I’ve never been much good at conclusory paragraphs, so I just kinda stuck this one in here.  The first sentence of that paragraph goes, “Through the characters of this play, Shakespeare illustrates nobility pursuing power, and the binary which is thereby implied: selfish ruling and servitude.” This could have flowed better had it begun with something other than, “Through the characters of this play (...),” which doesn’t have much to do with the rest of the essay.  I would re-write this line as, “As a whole, this play’s characters each play specific roles in analyzing the traits and motives of royal figures.” This line leads more into a summary of the essay - how I’d meant to write the ending paragraph - rather than awkwardly rephrasing the thesis.

[erinannelore-blog]

The Wolf's Postscript Adaptation

Introduction: Wolves are generally given a bad reputation since they are dangerous (of course - they are man-eating canines who travel in packs).  Many authors have adapted wolves’ predatory characteristics to fit the pages of books.  The Red Riding Hood adaptations are certainly no exceptions to this scenario.  The Wolf’s Postscript, however, allows the wolf of this story to argue that this is not the case - that the wolf is not a predator.  One’s decision - to trust the wolf or to trust the original versions of the story - is largely up to perspective.  

One of the main suspicions I’ve kept against the wolf was in the sixth stanza of his postscript.  Although he claims to have committed his crime out of ‘posterity,’ he seems to be excusing himself had he committed it out of other motives.  There are many versions of the actual story, however it is widely speculated that the original renditions of ‘The Little Red Riding Hood’ used the wolf as a metaphor for sexual predators, warning young girls to stay away.  This stanza directly relates to that metaphor in that he claims, “But I was no child-molester though you’ll agree she was pretty.” He gives his ‘would-be’ actions some merit by saying, “though you’ll agree she was pretty.” The word ‘though’ here, by definition, introduces something as supposed to what he had earlier said (that he “was no child-molester”).  

In order to eliminate, or change the perspective of, this flaw in the Wolf’s story, I made two changes: first, the stanza in which he specifically has been re-written. Second, the poem now includes some gender-specifications.  

I found that in the original reading of the poem, the wolf isn’t actually assigned any gender-specific pronouns, however during discussion most people assumed that the wolf was a ‘he’ (I thought so too, until re-reading it).  My theory is that by making the wolf a ‘she’ who is committing the crime out of ‘maternal instinct’, the poem’s context will completely change and the audience will be more sympathetic towards the wolf.

Adaptation: First, grant me my sense of history: I did it out of maternal instinct,


for kindergarten teachers
and 

a clear moral:

Little girls shouldn’t wander off


in search of strange flowers,


and they mustn’t speak to strangers.

And then grant me my generous sense of plot: Couldn’t I have gobbled her up


right there in the jungle?


Why did I ask her where her grandma lived? As if I, a forest-dweller,

didn’t know of the cottage under the three oak trees


and the old woman lived there all alone?

As if I couldn’t have swallowed her years before?

And you may call me the Big Bad Wolf, now my only reputation.


But I was no child-snatcher


she had to be reminded of potential danger.

And the huntsman:


Was I sleeping while he snipped


my thick black fur


and filled me with garbage and stones? I ran with that weight and fell down, simply so 

children could laugh


at the noise of the stones


cutting through my belly,


at the garbage spilling out


with a perfect sense of timing,


just when the tale


should have come to an end.

[goddaily]

[determinate]

[erinannelore-blog]

Hi berries ^_^

Hi breakfast. <3

[erinannelore-blog]

Analysis 4: The Space Traders

The novel’s main, underlying topic seems to be ‘price,’ as the plot analyzes the price people are wiling to pay--the extent to which they are willing to disadvantage another person, and for what cause.  This creates a binary between causes, as a divide between selfish and interpersonal causes are examined through the characters’ actions. The novel henceforth makes the implication that the white Americans in the novel, the President in particular, use racism and prejudice in attempts to excuse undermining other people to make their own lives more comfortable.  Throughout the vocalization of the President's thoughts surrounding black Americans, it becomes apparent that the President's actions surrounding racial political situations are largely driven by his own political motives.  For instance, the President's main gripe with the situation at hand, or at lease the first thing he considers when introduced to the novel, is that allowing aliens to take all of the African Americans to their home star is that it is "not a happy crisis at start of an election year. (p.162) Never does he consider the welfare of the African Americans, but he frequently refers back to election and being re-elected, as if being elected for a position of power is more important to him than the people whom he has power over.  Meanwhile, Golightly, the only black character whom the president recognizes as "smart" and "truly conservative," likely because Golightly had backed the President's propositions in the past, contrasts the President's political motivations by willingly being looked down upon by his own race "knowing that he had made a contribution few others were able--or willing--to make to the racial cause." (p.171) 

[erinannelore-blog]

Writer's Choice: A Jazzy Debate

I was listening to Frank Sanatra today and got to thinking about how Jazz has influenced American history (Yeah, I’m a dork.) People are always talking about the huge impact that jazz has had on modern American culture. This leads me to wonder what influenced jazz, which (here’s the part that’s relevant to this class) brought me to an article that is a perfect example of Mignolo’s theories in Epidemic Disobedience. http://riverwalkjazz.stanford.edu/program/bach-bix-influence-european-classics-american-jazz

Epistemic Disobedience concerns the ways in which different perspectives influence epistemology - the study of knowledge and coming to ‘know’.  Music most certainly can be studied for its epistemic bases.  It’s an art, and a knowledge, weaved with sound and emotion as a function is put together with numbers and theories, and it’s an art whose roots are thoroughly debated by musicians, historians, and the like.  

Relating back to the influences of jazz, many people attribute it’s roots to different sources.  I think it’s very interesting to observe the biases between people as they debate this topic. Growing up involved in band, I was always taught that jazz received most of its influence and rhythmic significance from African music brought to the United States.  From a historic perspective, it appears that jazz developed largely in segregated African American communities in the South.  Plus, the rhythmic creativity of jazz is much different than the rigidity of classical European music and more closely aligned with African drum music, in which multiple instruments play different rhythms resting on both the down-beat and half-beat but interlace to form the overall composition.

In short, traditional African music is hecka complex while classical European music generally had a more ‘hot-crossed-buns’ level of complexity in it’s rhythms (this is an over-exaggeration, but we’re sticking with it).

That being said, this was what I had perceived given what I was taught in laid-back islander public schools. The Stanford music geeks who published “From Bach to Bix: The Influence of European Classics on American Jazz” certainly have a different perspective than I.  They also bring up many great points concerning the roots of jazz: that early jazz musicians such as Gershwin combined jazz with symphonic performance, and many other early jazz musicians even explicitly drew their influence from Opera.  Moreover, there are other genres of European music with more complexity than I give them credit for, such as the waltz and polka.  Both similarly influenced jazz pieces such as ‘Tiger Rag’.  

After doing a little bit of digging, I came across an article which offered a much clearer and more Gestalt view, “Jazz is a musical form, often improvisational, developed by African- Americans and influenced by both European harmonic structure and African rhythmic intricacy.” (“Jazz, Music, and an African American Art Form”, African American Registry) So, perhaps jazz music retains roots from both African and European epistemic bases.

Moreover, perhaps the Stanford geeks and my teachers were both onto something, assuming this proposed definition is correct, and their own epistemic bases have at least some legitimacy.  Although they were drawing their information from different sources, as Mignolo suggests may be the case between other knowledges between different geo-political groups, they both seem to maintain some form of credibility. 

[yellowgreenfarmersmarket-deacti]

[foodaddictofficial]

[erinannelore-blog]

Las frutas <3

[erinannelore-blog]

Analysis 2: A Closer Look at 'Rightfulness of Power' in 'The Tempest'

Pre-Writing:

Prospero is the lawful king while he actually gave up his throne by neglecting it for his studies.

Binary or Division: Rightful power v. Inherited power

Complication: While Prospero was in line for the throne and, for a while, was in power, he openly neglected his throne for his studies. This being said, both he and his brother exhibit power-hungry motives and the tendency to manipulate situations for their own gain. In this way, it can be argued that either of them deserve the power, and neither one truly has a right to the throne.

Evidence + 2-3 Implications x 2 quote specific strands of evidence: Prospero neglects his throne for his studies Prospero uses Caliban and his gullible characteristics to gain power over the island. Later, he manipulates Ferdinand by using Miranda for his own benefit. He, in these ways, proves that he is manipulative. During Antonio’s discussion with Sebastian, Antonio tries to convince Sebastian to overthrow Sebastian’s brother as King of Naples which would give Antonio more political power Prospero attempts to alter Miranda’s perception of Ferdinand for his own benefit His language & raising Miranda (concerning Ferdinand) Consider that perhaps there actually were no other people for him to introduce Miranda Perhaps after being stranded on the deserted island, Prospero closed Miranda off from mankind so that she would immediately fall for Ferdinand (“It’s all falling into place ...”) Her response (concerning Ferdinand) She thinks he’s a spirit, seemingly because she has never seen another human. While Ferdinand might be something special, she may also simply be new to human contact outside her father’s and Caliban’s Miranda may actually be going beyond her father’s influence, giving her name to Ferdinand against her father’s wishes for instance EVIDENCE AGAINST PROSPERO’S BAD NATURE: Prospero sets Ariel free (after some waiting) and presents himself to the King Act 3, Scene 1: Prospero is overjoyed by his daughter’s happiness “So glad of this as they I cannot be, Who are surprised withal. But my rejoicing At nothing can be more. I’ll to my book, For yet ere supper-time must I perform Much business appertaining.”

Essay:

Many critics have discussed Shakespeare’s attitude towards monarchial power as expressed through his works as a playwright. Andrew Hadfield, for instance, suggests that, “Shakespeare’s plays written after 1603 concentrate far less on the legitimacy of the monarch than his earlier works had done, and far more on the behaviors of the monarch as a ruler in office. In doing so they are generally simultaneously more supportive of monarchy as an institution and equally--if not more--critical of the monarch’s conduct.” This being said, it cannot be assumed that Shakespeare’s plays are necessarily a result of his political views during the time in which he wrote a play, as they may as well simply creative illustrations of monarchial systems. The Tempest, however, may be a prime example of the selfish characteristics of some rulers as it analyzes “rightful” and inherited power.

This is shown in that while Prospero, the play’s protagonist or antagonist (depending on how the situation is examined), once held his ‘rightful’ place as the Duke of Milan, he was overthrown by his brother. Through the dialogue, however, it becomes apparent that this occurrence was only possible given that Prospero neglected the throne for his studies, “I, thus neglecting worldly ends, all dedicated to closeness and the bettering of my mind... .” (Act I, Scene II) He further states that he, at least at that time, had no interest in his dukedom by saying, “My library was dukedom enough for me.” (Act I, Scene II) This attitude seems to be lost as Prospero tries to gain his dukedom back through the manipulation of others, further showing the contradictory nature of his character. Prospero further exhibits his hunger for power by taking over the island which he and his daughter are stranded on, thereby mimicking his brother’s selfish actions by which he usurped Prospero from his dukedom. This is frequently lamented about by Caliban, the island’s lone resident who becomes Prospero’s slave, “This island’s mine, by Sycorax my mother, which thou takest from me.” (Act I, Scene II)  

Meanwhile, it is revealed that Antonio, Prospero’s brother, usurped Prospero’s dukedom through bribery. Given Prospero’s neglect and the selfishness of his brother’s actions, it can be argued that the actions of both make fit and unfit royalty. In either argument, however, the play’s characters are driven at least partly by political motives. Shakespeare’s play therefore, whether or not it examines his own political opinion as Hadfield suggests, is a reflection of the hierarchy of political power within a monarchial system and the motives by which it is driven.

Prospero, during the first act of the play, explains to his daughter that he was the rightful heir as the Duke of Milan. “And thy father Was Duke of Milan, and thou his only heir And princess no worse issued.” (Act I, Scene II) It can be therefore assumed that it was by birthright that Prospero inherited this throne. Given a monarchy’s characteristically patriarchal system, this would make his brother next in line for the throne. In the context of the story, he does, and it was Prospero’s brother who had taken the throne from him: “My brother and thy uncle, called Antonio— ... The King of Naples, being an enemy To me inveterate, hearkens my brother’s suit, Which was that he, in lieu o' th' premises Of homage and I know not how much tribute, Should presently extirpate me and mine Out of the dukedom, and confer fair Milan With all the honors on my brother.” (Act I, Scene II) This, although in allegiance with the King, is in itself a form of treason and bribery to overthrow a figure whose power extends beyond one’s own. Antonio, Prospero’s brother, continues to exhibit selfish motives throughout the entirety of the play. For example, in another instance he suggests that Stephano, the King’s brother, kill the King. While this would seemingly benefit the King’s brother more than anyone else, it is revealed earlier in Prospero’s discussion with Miranda in Act I that Antonio had to may fees to the King in order to win him on his side and overthrow Prospero. Through the King’s death, Antonio would be able to stop paying fines and would have a tight connection with the new king given the shared nature of their plot. “Thy case, dear friend, Shall be my precedent. As thou got’st Milan, I’ll come by Naples. Draw thy sword. One stroke Shall free thee from the tribute which thou payest. And I the king shall love thee.” Act II, Scene I Therefore, in the cases of both Prospero and Antonio, it can be interpreted that the play examines the role of selfishness of power in a monarchial system. 

The division between rightful power and granted power is further drawn through the character of Gonzalo, the wise chancellor. While much of the play spends time focusing on the nature of Prospero and his brother, and their manipulation over the other characters either through enslavement or bribery, Gonzalo speaks speaks and acts oppositely. During Act II Scene I, for instance, Gonzalo speaks of the utopian society he would raise were he ruler: “I' th' commonwealth I would by contraries Execute all things. For no kind of traffic Would I admit. No name of magistrate. Letters should not be known. Riches, poverty, And use of service—none. Contract, succession, Bourn, bound of land, tilth, vineyard—none. No use of metal, corn, or wine, or oil. No occupation. All men idle, all. And women too, but innocent and pure. No sovereignty—” In this description of this society which he speaks of, although Gonzalo imagines this society as his own ‘commonwealth,’ he claims none of the power over it as Prospero and Antonio spend their lives striving towards. On the contrary, Gonzalo gives up his opportunity to dream of riches, “Riches, poverty, and use of service--none.” (Act II, Scene I, v. 126-127) to give way for what he perceives to be ‘good’ for all people. Moreover, he renounces kingship, showing that he does not thirst for power but is more focused on the good of his imaginary people. If Shakespeare is, in fact, trying to illustrate that only selfish men make kings, he emphasizes it through Gonzalo’s character. During the first act of the play, when Prospero explains to Miranda how it was that they survived coming to the island, he attributes the help they received to Gonzalo. “Some food we had and some fresh water that A noble Neapolitan, Gonzalo, Out of his charity, who being then appointed Master of this design, did give us, with Rich garments, linens, stuffs, and necessaries, Which since have steaded much. So, of his gentleness, Knowing I loved my books, he furnished me From mine own library with volumes that I prize above my dukedom.” (Act I, Scene II) Considering that this was likely not the King’s or Antonio’s intention when Gonzalo was ordered to cast Prospero and his daughter out to sea, Gonzalo’s courage in helping the two proves that his selfless character likely goes beyond mere words (he is not saying one thing and acting another way).  While one might consider that he is trying to get in good graces with Prospero through this act, it would be impractical to do so for his own gain since Prospero was being dethroned and out of reach anyhow.

Through the characters of this play, Shakespeare illustrates nobility pursuing power, and the binary which is thereby implied: selfish ruling and servitude. He further illustrates the nature by which men work through other people to pursue positions of power, and the reasons behind which they are able assume power over others. To demonstrate this character in man, he shows the manipulative actions of rulers, which are contrasted by Gonzalo’s malevolence.

[erinannelore-blog]

Notes 4

The feedback on my previous analysis essentially told me that I didn't tag the post correctly. (Many apologies... I'm bad at navigating Tumblr and jUST found the tab called 'writing' on englishanew.)

After reflecting upon my writing during the course thus far, however, I can conclude that analyzing the pieces of literature we read on a deeper level is necessary.  Right now, I'm drawing more conclusions that can be found by anyone who reads the text, and not so many implications.  Often times, if I want a deeper look at the text, I'll read another critics analysis instead of analyze the text myself.  Unfortunately, for my laziness, writing requires actual thought.

This is the same laziness that is causing me to turn in my analysis 2 late - I'm still trying to figure out what 'implications' can be made out of the monarchy in Shakespeare's 'The Tempest'.  Thus far I'm doing a good job paraphrasing, but that's about it.

[erinannelore-blog]

The Tempest: Notes 3

Character: Gonzalo

Paraphrase: Gonzalo is a seemly wise, kind, old counselor who helped Prospero out during his time of need, allowing Prospero to live the life he had upon his island with Miranda, Prospero’s daughter. (Act I, Scene II, v. 160-169) Although he is not one of the main characters, he arguably has a great affect on their outcome in the story considering his role in keeping Prospero alive.  This is also shown as Gonzalo makes the most meaningful and thought-provoking comments out of the crew during times of trouble. Essentially, the most important conversations between the crew are instigated by Gonzalo. (Act I, Scene I, v. 23) (Act I, Scene II, v. 36) Moreover, as he is wise (which can arguably be insinuated by his profession), Gonzalo has the job of watching over the other characters as a doting, positive father-figure or thoughtful observer. (Act II, Scene I, v. 1-10) His role as a father-figure is only furthered as he takes tries to cheer up the unsettled Alonso.  (Act II, Scene I, v. 1-10)

SparkNotes’s Take: “An old, honest lord. The goodhearted Gonzalo helped Prospero and Miranda to escape and survive after Antonio usurped Prospero’s title. During the play, Gonzalo does his best to cheer up the despondent Alonso, maintains an optimistic outlook on the island where they’re stranded, and remains unfazed by the insulting taunts of Antonio and Sebastian.”

SparkNotes’s Take: While I have no reason to disagree with SparkNotes’s summary of Gonzalo’s role in the play, I believe that there is more to Gonzalo, as a character, than they mention.  Throughout the play, for instance, Gonzalo is responsible for comforting the more down-trod characters, Prospero and Alonso.  This in correlation with his sense of wisdom, as an observer during the storm and as a counsellor, give him a parental appeal.  While this is a subjective theory of Gonzalo’s character, I feel that mentioning his demeanor in relation to the other characters is important when describing him.

A Reflection: While I did feel that SparkNotes missed the more specific aspects of Gonzalo’s character, their mention of Gonzalo’s unfazed demeanor caused me to appreciate it more.  Initially, I didn’t pay any real attention to Antonio and Sebastian or their treatment of Gonzalo.  They seemed like petty characters in the broad scheme of things.  Seeing Gonzalo put up with them makes me appreciate him more, however.

[erinannelore-blog]

The Wolf's Postscript

Pre-writing:

Quotation: “You may call me the Big Bad Wolf, now my only reputation.” (Ali, stanza 3, ll. 1-2).

Mini-summary of immediate context: The wolf seems to try to appeal to his audience’s better nature through an abstract excuse for his actions.

Mini-summary of broader context: He relates his reputation with his actions with the underlying reasons behind his actions.  He tried to use this to make the audience thing of him differently while the other lines in the poem suggest that his title may well be validated (i.e. “I did it for posterity” and “I was no child-molester though you’ll agree she was pretty.”)

One focal word or phrase: “you may call me”

Strand of evidence to which focal word belongs: acknowledging society’s view of him

2-3 binaries, divisions, concepts, or themes relevant to quotation: truth/falsehood, reputable/non-reputable, good/bad

2 implications of the focal phrase:

The focal phrase suggests that the wolf is acknowledging the binary between truth and falsehood in this situation - that while the audience believes one thing about him, there is a possible alternate explanation. 

It seems to me that the wolf is suggesting that the audience has already heard of the tale of the “The Little Red Riding Hood.” This helps support his explanation of the story, since his motive in his version of the story was to teach a lesson, and if he was heard of, so was the lesson with which he is associated.

2 implications of the focal word:

The word may could imply either of two things: that there are two versions of the story (one right version, one wrong version), or that the audience ‘may’ have heard of the wolf.  But since the wolf is saying that they may “call” him something, and they’d have to have heard of something first before ‘calling’ it anything, it would make more sense to assume that the wolf simply wants to draw the audience in to hear an alternate story and change their perception of him.

Since the word ‘may’ goes to allow or suggest something, it is not necessarily saying that the wolf isn’t “The Big Bad Wolf.” The wolf, in this way, leaves his argument pretty open-ended; the audience is left wondering wether or not to believe him or the tale they were likely told.

Reference to one other moment in the text that provides additional insight: “But I was no child-molester though you’ll agree she was pretty” (Ali, stanza 3, 3-4)

While the wolf is trying to convince the audience that he was of good intentions, he - presumably a fully-grown male character - continues to acknowledge the attractive appeal of the little girl.  Were he to only be trying to convince the audience that he wasn’t responsible for the actions which he is accused of, he wouldn’t try to excuse the idea of hurting the little girl because ‘you’ll agree she was pretty.’

Reflection/Analytical Paragraph:   The wolf essentially sets-up the post-script to be ambiguous; while he is claiming that he is looked at in the wrong light, he gives the audience room to speculate wether or not the original story or his side of the story is the truth.  Through phrasing his words as, “you may call me The Big Bad Wolf,” rather than directly stating what he ‘is’ or ‘isn’t,’ he is demonstrating that there is another version of this story other than his own - and therefore, some degree of falsehood must exist in one of the stories. Furthermore, he is implying that the audience has likely heard this story before.  After all, the audience would not be able to call him anything had they never heard of him.  This adds another layer to the ambiguity of the story, since the claim of the wolf’s story is that he was trying to get his ‘lesson’ heard for generations to come. This would support his story, since it means that the goal he claims to have had was completed, and it gives an explanation as to why his lesson was passed on for so many years: he was making a spectacle of himself.  However, this claim is ambiguous in that he is also claiming that his lesson was taught and passed on because he had made it look like he is a predator.  Since, in the post-script, he is telling people that he only made himself look like a predator, he is destroying the principle by which his interior motives were once ‘secret.’ In this way, his story is once again both plausible and falsifiable.