Wide Sargasso Sea

One thing in the book that I really like is that in the first part Antoinette is the narrator.  Then in most of the second part, with the exception of Antoinette’s small part, her husband is the narrator.  I like that as readers we are able to read their lives from both of their perspectives.  Even though I like hearing the story from Christophine I do not like him because I believe he just married Antoinette for her money and properties.  Antoinette even feels the distance between the two of them.  She tells Christophe “he does not love me, I think he hates me.  He always sleeps in the dressing-room now and the servants know.  If I get angry he is scornful and silent, sometimes he does not speak to me for hours and I cannot endure it any more, I cannot.  What shall I do?  He was not like that at first” (Rhys 65).  So, he took Antoinette’s money and land, and then he starts to treat her badly and becomes distant.  It just does not seem fair that he gets to take everything that was given to her in order for her to survive and then for him to treat her poorly.  I understand marriages have their troubles, but those troubles should be worked out if they are married.  And if he is not happy in the marriage he should let her have her money and properties back and he should leave! 

            He explains later in the novel that he hates Jamaica.  He said he “hated its beauty and its magic […] above all [he] hated her.  For she belonged to the magic and the loveliness” (Rhys 103).  So he left her behind, hired a woman to take care of her, and he left for England.  This act of Christophine leaving Antoinette proves that he was primarily in the marriage for her money.  If he really loved her he would have stayed with her and not left a woman who is a stranger to be paid to look after her.  So, her money and properties that she inherited were taken from her by her husband and then she is left with a strange woman to take care of her…this does not seem fair.   

Through the Arc of the Rain Forest

It is interesting in this book how pigeons are an important part of the community and how pigeons can show people's greed.  This book has things in it that are bizarre to us as readers because the real world is not like the world in which this novel is taking place in.  In the real world people do not fly pigeons like this and pigeons are not made pets, let go far away from the home, and the travel all the way back to the people's home who made the pigeons a pet.  Pigeons also do not go and get messages to deliver to people.  But maybe there is a point that the author is trying to make by having these pigeons play this role in this novel.  I think the message is centered around money and the greediness that can come along with it.  Many people go to Batista and Tania's home to see if they will get some luck by finding out the pigeons message.  If the pigeon brought some message about wealth, the people would go buy lottery tickets in hopes that they would become wealthy.  But those who receive wealth are greedy with it, except for Kazamasa.  He is not greedy even when he wins the lotteries, everyone is actually greedy trying to get Kazamasa's money!  As it says in the novel, "everyone seem[ed] to have an idea of what he or she would do with sudden wealth, but Kazaumasa was a true exception" (Yamashita 59).  Kazaumasa does not even spend his own money, he gives it away and everyone else spends it for him.  Kaxamasa is so generous with his money, but the people take advantage of him because of his generosity.       

Faust..part 1

I enjoyed reading the first part of Faust.  I enjoyed the story line after I understood what was going on.  What I had a hard time with was understanding the language in the text.  The way it is written reminds me how Shakespearean plays are written.  I always have had a hard time understandinding old english, and I therefore had a hard time understanding this play.  So, I put down the book, went to sparknotes, and then picked the book back up, started fromn the beginning, and was then able to understand what was going on a bit more then when I started to read it cold. 

What I especially like about the story is that its main character Faust is a moral character but is constantly being tempted by the devil to be immoral.  I enjoy seeing that Faust does genuinely try to be moral, but ends up doing the wrong thing, at somebody else's expense.  I am interested to see how his character is going to develope in part two.  I want to see if he will get back in touch with his moral side and deny the devil or if he will allow himself to be persuaded into doing more evil acts that someone else will have to suffer for.


This is exactly the picture that came to my head while reading the first part of Faust.  I believe that Faust has a moral side, but I believe that he is easily persuaded by the devil.  For example Faust felt bad when he learned Gretchen was in jail because of what Faust and the Devil did.  Gretchen did not kill her brother Valentine, Faust and the Devil did.  So even though Faust is moral and felt bad and therefore tried to rescue Gretchen, this scene demonstrates how easily Faust is persuaded by the devil because it was Faust's fault why she was in jail in the first place.

The Home and the World

This is a very good novel.  I enjoyed reading it.  Of course through, there are things I like about it and things I do not, and there are characters I like in it and there are characters I did not care for.  I do not care for Sandip and Bimala.  It seems as though Sandip thinks too highly of himself.  Yes we learn he is an educator and he speaks as though he is a philosopher, but he seems to always refute everything Nikhil has to say.  Not only does he seem to always have to disagree with Nikhil, Sandip goes on and on refuting him.  I also did not care much for Sandip because I felt as though he knew what he was doing in stealing Nikhil's wife away.  It is very inappropriate and just disgusting that Sandip would do such a thing.  I feel bad for Nikhil.

I feel bad for Nikhil that Bimala fell out of love with him because she was seduced by Sandip because Nikhil seems like he is a good guy.  Nikhil seems like he has a good heart, good intentions, and he treats Bimala with respect.  Nikhil treats her with more respect then women were treated with during this time period in this place.  One time in specific that my heart breaks for Nikhil is when he is in their bedroom, their bedroom he never goes in anymore.  I feel bad for him because he feels like he is doing something wrong by being in their bedroom.  He expresses that he feels "like a wrong-doer, a trespasser, prying into a secret not meant for [him]" ( Tagore 87).  I feel bad for him because he feels so disconnected from Bimala that he feels strangger in his own room.  This is heart breaking to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_N5ARzyx8Sg

This is a link to a clip I found on youtube.com.  In its subtitles you can read all about what this guy delivering the speech was saying about the Swadeshi movement.  I believe that Bimala was attracted to Sandip largely because of his obsession with the movement and his obsession with having her be a big part of the movement. 

Candide

What I like about Candide is that Candide is very adventurous.  The book is very fast paced and there is some sort of action on every page.  Sometimes when I read my mind tends to wander and I realize that I have flipped through a couple pages even though I have not really read them because my mind was somewhere else.  But, with this book it was impossible for my mind to bird walk because there was so much action every second of reading it.  But if I had allowed my mind to bird walk reading this book for even a half of a page, I would have missed a major event. 

Another aspect of the story of Candide that I liked was how you could never be too sure about anything because you could never be sure of anything.  For example towards the end of the story Candide found out that his philosopher Pangloss and his true love’s brother the Baron were not dead even though Candide went almost the whole book thinking they were dead.  Candide saw Pangloss hanged and Candide thought he killed the Baron (Voltaire 86).  Candide ends up finding out that Pangloss was still able to breathe after he was hung and that the Baron was not dead from being stabbed. 

One idea that the narrator tries to convey to the reader throughout this story is that “all is for the best in this world.”  This quote is written a few times throughout the book.  That seems to be the theme throughout this book.  But, it is hard for me to agree with this theme.  I am a believer that everything happens for a reason and that we suffer so we can appreciate what we have more and for the good that is about to come.  But, it is evident that Candide did not end up appreciating what he ended up with at the end of the story.  For example he wanted Cunégonde throughout the whole book, but in the end when he gets her he says that she has become ugly and has a bad temper (Voltaire 90).  Candide wanted to marry Cunégonde throughout the whole book and then at the end his heart does not desire to marry her anymore (Voltaire 89).  So it makes me question the reoccurring theme that everything happens for the best because in the end things do not work out for Candide, because he is not completely happy.

I came accross this image after I did a google search for "voltaire's candide cuture" and this was one of the images that came up.  I would guess thatthis is Cunégonde at the end of the book when she is ugly.  This picture is scary because Cunégonde really does look ugly.  It is hard to imagine that at one time she could have been gorgeous. 

The Ghazal-Beauty

The idea of the Ghazal is a beautiful concept.  I am an English major so I have come across poetry many times.  But, the style of the Ghazal and what it stands for is a different way of expressing poetry and I have come to develop a great appreciation for the Ghazal.  American poetry has rules that many modern poets try to break away from and the Ghazal is the same way.  As explained in the article Masterpieces of Urdu Ghazal from 17^th to 20^th Century the rules in writing a Ghazal consist of: a sher-five to fifteen couplets that rhyme, the matla-the first sher, the radif-meaning that the second line of all the shers must end in the same word or words, and the kaafiya-an internal rhyme before the radif (3-4). The structure of the Ghazal is unique to the Eastern culture. 

          

Although there were guidelines set in place for how to write a Ghazal, just like modern American poetry, Ghazals too are breaking away from the traditional form.  Also, the words get lost in translation.  For example if the same word is on the second line of all the shers, it is that way written in Urdu, however; in English when words are translated it will not look like there is the same word on the second line of all the shers because the words are not the same after they are translated!  The words change when they are translated. 

           

Aside from the problems with translating from Urdu to English, the Ghazal is still unique.  What makes the Ghazal unique is what they are based on.  The Ghazal is written, according to the article Ghazals of Ghalib on “intense moral privacies; and of love—not about love, but of love” (xxiii).  In American poetry we write about love; how it hurts, how it is good, how it makes our existence, etc.  In Urdu they write of love.  Although I appreciate American poetry I also have a great respect how the Ghazal writes on love differently.

           

I found a Ghazal on youtube.com.  I like this Ghazal not only for the words but also for the music, which brings me to another aspect of the Ghazal that I like.  I like how they sing their poetry and although it is not in this video, but I like how the people dress up and dance.  The music in this Ghazal is a bit sad and depressing, but it sounds that there is a glimmer of hope.  And from the words that make up the Ghazal the music reflects the mood of the music.  Of course there are places where it is obvious that some words and meaning were lost in translation.  But although this problem occurs, this Ghazal still has a lot of meaning and it is still beautiful.