Who is the Merchant of Venice?
I think that Antonio is the Merchant of Venice. It would make sense that the Merchant of Venice would be the protagonist since it's the title of play, and since Shylock is the antagonist of the play, that would make Antonio the protagonist, and thus the Merchant of Venice. I think that the conflict between Shylock and Antonio is the main conflict of the story. The deal between Shylock and Antonio happened in the beginning of the play, so it makes sense for it to be kind of the main thing throughout the play. Once the deal has been made, Shylock spends the time up until the trial wanting Antonio not to be able to repay him so that Shylock will be able to kill Antonio. The definition of an antagonist is someone who is opposed or hostile towards someone. To me, trying to kill someone makes you both hostile and opposed towards them, which would make Shylock the antagonist. On the flip side, a protagonist is the main character. I think a better definition would be the person who opposes the antagonist, and Antonio seems to oppose Shylock the most, which is why he is the protagonist and therefore the Merchant of Venice. Also, its the MERCHANT of Venice, which doesn't mean that it has to be an actual merchant, but it would make more sense for the Merchant of Venice to be an actual merchant. Antonio seems to be the main merchant in the play.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Journal due 2/17/13
Is the Merchant of Venice a comedy, tragedy, or a tragicomedy?
I think that the Merchant of Venice is a tragicomedy. There are some funny parts, especially with Portia's suitors and their self-confidence in their abilities to pick the right chest, but I think that a lot of the play has had some underlying tragic tones in it. If Antonio doesn't end up being able to pay Shylock back the 3,000 ducats he owes, then Shylock gets a pound of his flesh, which isn't really very funny. Also, some people think that Antonio likes Bassanio, and if that's true then it's kind of sad that Bassanio would rather be with Portia.
Sunday, February 9, 2014
Journal due 2/10/14
2) How is Belmont different from Venice? How can we use the Green World theory to interpret this?
In class we talked about the difference between the Green World and the City World. We said that Belmont is part of the Green world and Venice is the City World. I think that Belmont IS part of the Green World in the Merchant of Venice, but since it's also a city, in another play it could be considered part of the City World. In the Merchant of Venice, Belmont is where Portia and Nerissa are, while Venice is where all of the men like Bassanio, Lorenzo, Shylock, Gratiano, and Antonio. All of the business transactions and stuff like that happen in Venice, and the romance happens in Belmont as the suitors try to win over Portia and play the game so they can marry her. Belmont also has intergenerational strifes because Portia is kind of upset at her father because he made it so she can't choose her husband if she wants her inheritance. These strifes may not be resolved because Portia's father is dead, but she may come to terms with everything he did. Venice has a lot of social hierarchy that Belmont doesn't have. Most of the things we read about happening in Venice were about money or how Jews and Christians disliked and didn't trust each other, while things that happened in Belmont so far were about romance and family issues.
In class we talked about the difference between the Green World and the City World. We said that Belmont is part of the Green world and Venice is the City World. I think that Belmont IS part of the Green World in the Merchant of Venice, but since it's also a city, in another play it could be considered part of the City World. In the Merchant of Venice, Belmont is where Portia and Nerissa are, while Venice is where all of the men like Bassanio, Lorenzo, Shylock, Gratiano, and Antonio. All of the business transactions and stuff like that happen in Venice, and the romance happens in Belmont as the suitors try to win over Portia and play the game so they can marry her. Belmont also has intergenerational strifes because Portia is kind of upset at her father because he made it so she can't choose her husband if she wants her inheritance. These strifes may not be resolved because Portia's father is dead, but she may come to terms with everything he did. Venice has a lot of social hierarchy that Belmont doesn't have. Most of the things we read about happening in Venice were about money or how Jews and Christians disliked and didn't trust each other, while things that happened in Belmont so far were about romance and family issues.
Monday, February 3, 2014
Journal 2-3-14
In class, we watched the Crash Course video on the Renaissance and whether it was a thing. John Green argued that because it didn't really affect people who weren't upper class, it shouldn't really be called a thing. I don't really agree with John Green about the fact that the renaissance wasn't a thing. The renaissance is just a name for some things that happened during a time period. In, fact some historians call it the Early Modern Period instead. Just because it didn't affect a lot of people like women, Jewish people, and pretty much everyone who wasn't rich, it still caused a lot of expansion in the arts and science.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Colonizing debate
Team 1
Colonization is over
It's not a personal matter
Benefits for Africa. Development, railroads, global stimulus
Africa became globalized. People were healthier and there was a population increase
Advanced irrigation, communication, and transportation,
Foreign countries wanted Africans to succeed so they paid them, gave them goods and medical treatment.
Abolished sacrificing and cannibalism, which increased life
Colonizers brought resources to colonized countries.
GNP is rising
What are the main arguments presented by Team 2?
Colonizer forced colonized to trade
They weren't equal
Cultural loss
Didn't want to help colonized, wanted the "trophy"
Isn't morally right. The colonized didn't want to be colonized and it destroys their way of life
Leads to genocide usually.
Ireland did have a good outcome.
Colonizers are just using the colonized for their benefit.
They are reducing the cultural value of the artifacts when they take them away from their country
The African people aren't of western ideals so they like their situation.
Crossfire:
J: colonized is morally right if it helps people enough. Tribes have a lot of limits. Are the benefits outweighing the cultural loss
S: no the tribe feels civilized. Why should they have to change? Do you know where the artifacts from Nigeria are being held? Great Britain in museums with captions about how they conquered them.
Crossfire two:
A: why does GDP matter?
S: it shows how the country is doing economically
A: personally seen british museum and artifacts displayed as trophies
Summary
Team 1:
Colonization helped Nigerians get to where they are today
Gave them resources
Gave them equality
Team 2:
Why does why we're here now matter
Colonizers weren't there to help colonized, they wanted to take the resources from themselves.
It's not safe in Nigeria
Grand crossfire:
Sloan: how would you say Nigeria is doing better
Shiraz: GDP. Economic growth is rising.
Alex: world bank was founded in the western country
John: there are Africans working there
Alex: doesn't matter
John: do you think Africans should be able to govern themselves.
Alex: yes they have the right. Everyone has the right to govern themselves.
Final focus:
Team 1:
Without colonization, we would still be hunter gatherers
Developed the colonies
Both started and abolished slavery
Post colonial success is obvious because British introduced recourses.
Team 2:
There is no good reason as to why they didn't reduce the cultural value or exploit them
Who won the debate? Why?
If the first part,I kind of feel like you can't beat the morality of destroying another culture's civilization, but I do feel like john argued his case better than Sloan.
In the second part, I feel like Alex's had more facts as well as talked about the morals. Shiraz talked about the development benefits, and I think he argued well. I think that Alex used the crossfire to his advantage more than Shiraz did.
In the grand crossfire, I feel like team two argued there points better.
In the end, I think that team two won because they pointed out how the culture was lost and didn't develop them for the better.
Colonization is over
It's not a personal matter
Benefits for Africa. Development, railroads, global stimulus
Africa became globalized. People were healthier and there was a population increase
Advanced irrigation, communication, and transportation,
Foreign countries wanted Africans to succeed so they paid them, gave them goods and medical treatment.
Abolished sacrificing and cannibalism, which increased life
Colonizers brought resources to colonized countries.
GNP is rising
What are the main arguments presented by Team 2?
Colonizer forced colonized to trade
They weren't equal
Cultural loss
Didn't want to help colonized, wanted the "trophy"
Isn't morally right. The colonized didn't want to be colonized and it destroys their way of life
Leads to genocide usually.
Ireland did have a good outcome.
Colonizers are just using the colonized for their benefit.
They are reducing the cultural value of the artifacts when they take them away from their country
The African people aren't of western ideals so they like their situation.
Crossfire:
J: colonized is morally right if it helps people enough. Tribes have a lot of limits. Are the benefits outweighing the cultural loss
S: no the tribe feels civilized. Why should they have to change? Do you know where the artifacts from Nigeria are being held? Great Britain in museums with captions about how they conquered them.
Crossfire two:
A: why does GDP matter?
S: it shows how the country is doing economically
A: personally seen british museum and artifacts displayed as trophies
Summary
Team 1:
Colonization helped Nigerians get to where they are today
Gave them resources
Gave them equality
Team 2:
Why does why we're here now matter
Colonizers weren't there to help colonized, they wanted to take the resources from themselves.
It's not safe in Nigeria
Grand crossfire:
Sloan: how would you say Nigeria is doing better
Shiraz: GDP. Economic growth is rising.
Alex: world bank was founded in the western country
John: there are Africans working there
Alex: doesn't matter
John: do you think Africans should be able to govern themselves.
Alex: yes they have the right. Everyone has the right to govern themselves.
Final focus:
Team 1:
Without colonization, we would still be hunter gatherers
Developed the colonies
Both started and abolished slavery
Post colonial success is obvious because British introduced recourses.
Team 2:
There is no good reason as to why they didn't reduce the cultural value or exploit them
Who won the debate? Why?
If the first part,I kind of feel like you can't beat the morality of destroying another culture's civilization, but I do feel like john argued his case better than Sloan.
In the second part, I feel like Alex's had more facts as well as talked about the morals. Shiraz talked about the development benefits, and I think he argued well. I think that Alex used the crossfire to his advantage more than Shiraz did.
In the grand crossfire, I feel like team two argued there points better.
In the end, I think that team two won because they pointed out how the culture was lost and didn't develop them for the better.
Friday, December 6, 2013
Things Fall Apart 20-22
Christianity had a huge impact on the Umuofia people. I think that the book is about how Okonkwo's life fell apart, and I think the missionaries had a huge impact on that. I think that in some ways, the things that the white people brought were good or at least not bad for Okonkwo's people. The snuff wasn't a bad thing, and that had to come from somewhere in the United States. However, once they tried to convert the people to Christianity, things well, things fell apart. I think it was appealing to a lot of people, especially men without titles, because it seemed like a fresh start. Also, they wouldn't be condemmned for an accident in the same way as with the Umuofia's religion. Overall, I think that the missionaries caused the loss of a lot of culture within Okonkwo's people
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Journal 12/3/13
I am doing a mood space, so my essay will be about what I'm planning to do and Ms. Harrison will be my audience. Location 692-715 (pp. 63-65) "Okonkwo did not taste any food...Okonkwo, you have become a woman indeed." What does Okonkwo's reaction to the death of Ikemefuna say about his inner struggle with being a "real man?"
I think that the fact that Okonkwo is struggling with Ikemefuna's death shows his changing definition of what a "real man" is. In his culture, crying is associated with weakness and femininity, so he has to deal with the fact that people see him as weak. Okonkwo his afraid that the fact that he is crying and not eating in order to mourn Ikemefuna's death will be viewed as not manly and the women in his household and in general will stop listening to him. I think that this is the main, or at least one of the main struggles of the book; discovering and dealing with Okonkwo's changing definition of what it means to be a man.
I think that the fact that Okonkwo is struggling with Ikemefuna's death shows his changing definition of what a "real man" is. In his culture, crying is associated with weakness and femininity, so he has to deal with the fact that people see him as weak. Okonkwo his afraid that the fact that he is crying and not eating in order to mourn Ikemefuna's death will be viewed as not manly and the women in his household and in general will stop listening to him. I think that this is the main, or at least one of the main struggles of the book; discovering and dealing with Okonkwo's changing definition of what it means to be a man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)