Proper Paper #2: Finding the ‘World’ (Final Exam)

INTRO: The last three books in this class are truly works of ‘world’ literature, meaning they represent the perspective of cultures and languages outside the normal American/European orbit. Additionally, each one tells a coming-of-age story as each narrator (they’re all first person, too) attempts to negotiate the responsibilities of adulthood through largely innocent eyes. But beyond these generic similarities, how much do they really have in common? Is anything “not us” by definition “World Literature”? Or do works from postcolonial societies offer a unified critique of the Western world, as well as the forms and languages it has bequeathed us?

PROMPT: Using these three works as a basis, how might you define ‘World Literature’ as a perspective? How does it differ from the other works in class (Manon, etc.), or from other works you’ve studied this semester? What unites works of 20^th-21^st century literature from other countries and traditions outside of Europe? Do they share certain approaches, themes, identities, and values? Or could the very idea of lumping them together as “World Literature” be limiting, dismissive, or even racist? In other words, are they ‘World’ by default, or are they ‘World’ by intention? Do we gain more by studying them together rather segregating them to their respective counties or languages (Duras as French lit, Naipaul as British lit, etc.)?

REQUIREMENTS: This is your final exam, so to speak, so I want to see you use all three books to some degree (though you can use one more than the others). Quote and analyze passages to make your point, and don’t summarize any more than necessary (no need to recount the plot of each book). You’re not required to use secondary sources, but you certainly can if you wish. I’m most interested in how you can use the books to defend this term and explore how it helps us read the literature in question.

There is no length requirement. Write at your own peril! J

Due no later than Friday, December 11^th by 5pm (no later papers accepted—it’s this or bust).

Last Video: Reading the "World"

NOTE: This is your final video for the class, so don't forget to leave a response below (a lot of people are forgetting to do this, so be careful!). However, this video and the response are geared to prepare you for your final paper, the so-called Proper Paper #2. I'll post that early next week so you can start thinking about it, though it won't be due until the last day of finals. Don't forget the final set of questions for The Lover below this post as well.

Final Questions for The Lover (and final questions for the class!)

NOTE: These are the final questions for the class, and all that's left is a short video I'll post later today that will introduce the Proper Paper #2 assignment (your Final). So stay tuned! Remember, no more face-to-face classes, so just focus on finishing the reading and planning your final paper. Let me know if you have any questions.

Q1: The narrator is obviously infatuated with her roommate, Helene Lagonelle. She writes of her that she "worn out with desire" for her, and that she "wants her to give herself where I give myself" (74). Since she has clearly flouted so many of the taboos and social conventions of her society, why doesn't she have a relationship with Helene? What seems to stop her? 

Q2: Why does colonial society seem to destroy young men as readily as it discards young women? Why might men, in particularly, have a difficult time finding a role in this society? Why might the older brother's life be the rule, rather than the exception, in Indochine society? 

Q3: The Narrator does something strange in the book, conflating her stillborn child with her dead younger brother. Why does she do this? Does the brother's death allow her to mourn her child properly (openly)? How might this also relate to the Lover's desire of her being similar to his desire for a child? (she says a few times that she became his child). 

Q4: Finally, most importantly, does she love "the Lover"? Is the book really about him, as its title claims, or is he merely the means of kindling her memory to who she was at this time? Or does "the Lover" refer to someone/something else? 

A Reminder...

Just a reminder: Rough Paper #2 is due next week on the day you don't have class. So for Monday classes, it's Wednesday; Wednesday classes is on Monday. Why? Only so you won't have two things due on your class day (a paper and pages from The Lover), and so I can divide the class in half as far as the grading. Remember that this is a ROUGH paper, so I'm not expecting miracles. I want you to get ideas on paper, nothing more. Just follow the basic ideas on the assignment and you'll do fine...but please, for the love of all that's sacred, QUOTE from the book! :) :) :) 

ALSO, I've decided not to post a video this week so you'll have less to focus on. Just do the paper and the reading. I'll give you another video (a final one) next week.

Good luck and let me know if you have any questions!

Reading & Questions for Duras' The Lover (pp.1-60)

 

From the 1992 film of The Lover 

NOTE: I apologize for the delay; I've been under the weather, and somehow managed to delete the video I made to introduce this book. Rather than making it again with other deadlines looming, I'm just going to post the questions for now and post the video tonight or tomorrow. But luckily the book is a short and quickish read, so you shouldn't get behind. After all, we're almost done with the semester!

Q1: The book takes place in French Indochine (Indo-China), a French colony since 1887 (which is today Vietnam). Like Miguel Street, people of many races and cultural identities live here, including the narrator, who is the child of a French schoolmistress. How does race play a factor in this society? How is she seen by others, including her lover, the mysterious Chinese businessman? Also, how does she see herself in relation to others?

Q2: How is the narration (and the Narrator) of this book very similar to Miguel Street? What similarities do they have in their relationship to the area and to the way they tell their story? Why do you think many postcolonial works might adopt this narrative style? 

Q3: On page 34, the Narrator writes that "And I'll always have regrets for everything I do, everything I've gained, everything I've lost, good and bad..." Why do you think her affair with 'the Lover' begins this endless stream of regrets? What does she feel she has gained and lost? And why might it still affect her so many decades later (since she's writing the book in old age)?

Q4: On page 54, she describes the stiflingly cruel atmosphere of her family, writing that "It's a family of stone...Every day we try to kill one another, to kill. Not only do we not talk to one another, we don't even look at one another." What clues do we get for the family's disfunction? Is it their mother? The status? The country itself? Or is this being colored by her regrets in the future? 

Rough Paper #2: Literary Apprenticeships

“You people think I not a man, eh? My father had eight children. I is his son. I have ten. I better than all of you put together” (“The Pyrotechnicist”).

INTRO: Both Miguel Street and Botchan are “bildungsroman” (education novels) or coming-of-age novels about the education and maturation of a young man. While the Narrator in Miguel Street is more subtle than the comical blunders of Botchan, we still see him watching, thinking, and growing behind the scenes of each story. In a traditional coming-of-age novel in England, the hero would learn to become a moral and educated man by the end of the story (and probably married to boot). But these are hardly ordinary novels, and all of them take place very far from England.

PROMPT: For your second rough paper, I want you to discuss how each book subverts the typical ‘bildungsroman’ model.  Clearly neither Soseki nor Naipaul was interested in writing a paint-by-numbers story. Instead, they wanted to use the basic template of a bildungsroman to do something else—or to suggest why this model doesn’t work in ‘real’ life. As you write, consider SOME of the following ideas:

• What lessons do the heroes learn (or incorrectly learn) during their stories?
• Who are their role models? Who are their enemies? Why is this important?
• Is the author sympathetic to our heroes? Or are they something satirizing or outright mocking them?
• How do other characters in the stories view the heroes and their education? Are they impressed by them? Or disgusted?
• How do they learn to define manhood (since both are men) through the stories and chapters of each work? What do they accept, and what do they reject?
• Does each hero get a ‘career’ by the end? Is it their “chosen calling”? Or do they settle for something “good enough”?
• Do the heroes receive a universal education…or is it specific to their respective countries/cultures?

REQUIREMENTS

• Page numbers are up to you; it’s a rough paper, so you decide how much is enough (but try to avoid saying too little)
• Quote from both books: don’t simply summarize or paraphrase, and please don’t give us plot summary. Analyze the ideas and language of the stories.
• Try to show connections between the books, even when they don’t agree with one another
• Due Monday, November 16^th for Wednesday Classes
• Due Wednesday, November 18^th for Monday Classes

Reading & Questions for Miguel Street (stories below)

 

Read the following stories for next week:

* B. Wordsworth

* The Pyrotechnicist

* The Mechanical Genius

* Hat

* How I Left Miguel Street 

ALSO: I'll be posting the Rough Paper #1 assignment along with a video at the end of this week--so stayed tuned! 

Answer 2 of the following:

Q1: Why is the Narrator so fascinated with people like Popo (from "The Thing Without a Name"), B.Wordsworth, and Bhacku? What makes them all similar in his mind? Similarly, how does the street 'break' each one during the course of their story? In a way, why can't people like this exist on Miguel Street for long?

Q2: Writing about Morgan and his 'jokes,' the narrator admits that "I felt the joke was somehow terribly and frightening" (86). Why is Morgan such a terror to his children, yet such an incredible buffoon to everyone on the street? Why can't he be "one of the boys" like Hat and Bogart?

Q3: How does the narrator (and by extension, Naipaul) feel about the casual misogyny and outright brutality of the street? Is the Narrator aware of and critical of it? Or does Naipaul make the Narrator accept and even applaud it at times? An example of either one?

Q4: At the end of "Hat," the narrator remarks, "When Hat went to jail, part of me had died" (214). What changed? And how does this lead to the Narrator's fateful departure from Miguel Street (something that not even Elias could manage to do?).

Lecture Video #8: The Double Vision of Colonialism

Before you read Miguel Street, watch this short video and respond with a comment below. This gives you a little context about what makes this book of stories a "postcolonial" text, and how colonialism left a lasting legacy on the literature of its former colonies. 

Be sure to see the reading & questions for Miguel Street in the post below this one! 

Reading & Questions for Naipaul, Miguel Street (stories below)

 

For next week, be sure to read the following stories from V.S. Naipaul's book of stories, Miguel Street:

* Bogart

* The Thing Without a Name

* His Chosen Calling

* Man-Man 

Answer 2 of the following: 

Q1: What clues do we get about the narrator in these first stories? Who is he? What is his relationship to the men in the stories? Why do you think he's telling us about them? 

Q2: At the end of "Bogart," the title character leaves his wife and return to Miguel Street. When the Eddoes asks Hat why he left, his response is, "To be a man, among we men" (16). What does this reveal about the culture of Port of Spain, and how do we see this sentiment expressed in the other stories?

Q3: Trinidad (where the stories take place) didn't get its independence from Britain until 1961, a bit after these stories were written. Therefore, Miguel Street depicts a world still under the thumb of colonial values and expectations. How do we see the British influence in Port of Spain society? How does a sense of Britishness shape the lives of even the poorest citizens in Miguel Street?

Q4: The characters in these stories--Bogart, Hat, Eddoes, Man-Man, etc.--are great eccentrics, each one humorous for the way they act and talk, especially to an outsider. Do you think Naipaul is making fun of them? Is he satirizing the small-town life of Miguel Street, which is ridiculously from any other point of view? Or is his humor more affectionate and understanding? An example either way? 

Reading & Questions for Soseki, Botchan, Chapters 6-11

Since the book is relatively short and reads quickly, try to finish it for next week's class. If you don't quite finish, no worries, since you can finish it later (you'll want to for the next paper assignment). I won't post a blog response so you can just focus on reading, reading, reading! But honestly, it goes very quickly--I finished the last chapters in just over one sitting. 

Answer 2 of the following:

Q1: The German term "bildungsroman" means "a novel (roman) that concerns itself with the spiritual/moral growth of an individual over the course of the story." Certainly, Botchan can be seen as one, since we see him grow up, take his first job, and struggle with growing up and becoming a teacher. But it's also expected that a protagonist change over the course of the novel and learn valuable truths about being human. Does Botchan do this? Does he grow up? Or only preserve his 'Tokyo' identity?

Q2: Several times throughout the novel, Botchan's colleagues burst out laughing when he says anything, particularly in a department meeting (as on page 72, when he explains "I had assumed in all innocence that such things [leaving night duty] were allowed"). Why does he strike them as so funny, when Botchan thinks he's a very serious and intimidating person? Are we more often laughing at him, or sympathizing with his plight?

Q3: Botchan is very critical of people who are 'sissies' or too cultured, as when he writes, "Haiku is either for masters like Basho, or for guys like hair stylists. What business does a math teacher have fooling around with little poems about morning glories and the bucket at the well?" (94). Why does he find this ridiculous and offensive? Does it reminds you of Lady Gertrude's phrase in Hamlet, "methinks he doth protest too much"? 

Q4: Why does Botchan never write Kiyo a return letter after she begs him to write more about his daily life? What excuse does he give the reader, since he obviously feels somewhat guilty about it? Might this be one of his most unreliable acts of narration yet?

Q5: The book ends very abruptly with Botchan thrashing Redshirt and The Hanger, then leaving the school forever with Porcupine. We then get a single paragraph summarizing his later life and the death of Kiyo. Why do you think Soseki ends his novel with this surprising epilogue? Does he want us to view this as Botchan's success or failure in life? 

Lecture Video #7: The Perspective of Haiku

Watch the video below which gives a little context for Japanese art and literature, particularly the famous genre of haiku, which is very different than what we find in Soseki's modern novel...and yet, we could argue that Botchan is a humorous novel of almost haiku-like wit and succinctness. There are three haiku by Bashō below, which you will use to answer the question at the of the video. Don't forget to read Chapters 1-5 for next week and answer the questions (not everyone is doing them--hint, hint!). 

THE HAIKU: 

#1: Having slept 

In the rain,

The bamboo corrected itself

To view the moon.

#2: I picked my way

Through a mountain road,

And I was greeted

By a smiling violet.

#3: With a hat on my head

And straw sandals on my feet,

I met on the road

The end of the year. 

Reading & Questions for Soseki's Botchan, Chapters 1-5

Read through Chapter 5 (or as close as you can) for next week, and as you read, think about the subtle conflict between Eastern and Western ideas in the novel. I'll post a video soon that discusses a few things you might consider and look for as well. Otherwise, I think you'll enjoy this humorous novel about a ne'er do well who becomes a teacher out in the sticks, and has utter contempt for his students and his profession. And yet, for all his pride and buffoonishness, his character and voice are irresistible. 

Answer 2 of the following:

Q1: In many ways, our hero, "Botchan" is an unreliable narrator who doesn't always present things the way they truly are, even if that's the way he thinks they are. How does he share some personality traits and narrative techniques that we saw earlier with des Greiux in Manon Lescaut? How do we know that Soseki doesn't completely want us to trust Botchan?

Q2: Reflecting on his long-time servant, Kiyo, Botchan says, "She must have been absolutely crazy about me...The kind of devotion she had for me was downright scary. She was absolutely certain I was going to have a glorious career and become a wonderfully distinguished man" (8). Why does she place him on a pedestal and ignore his brother? Does he seem to encourage this behavior, or does he really bother him as he suggests? 

Q3: Why does Botchan get so annoyed by the phrase "na moshi' that his students use as the end of almost every sentence? What do you think it means? Does it seem like they're being disrespectful to him? Or is he taking it the wrong way?

Q4: In Chapter 4, Botchan explains that "Whatever faults I may have, my ancestors were retainers of the Shogun, a line of warriors going back to the Emperor Seiwa and descended from the great Minamoto non Mitsunaka" (44). Why does he want us (the readers) to know this, and are other people in the book aware of this? What role does class and rank play in early 20th century Japan, according to Soseki's novel? 

Lecture Video #6: Intertextuality in Literature

This video is designed to help you think about the Proper Paper #1 assignment (don't you just love that title! :)) as well as Cavafy's poems in general. It discusses literature as theory as well as the crucial element of intertextuality present in all literature and art. Be sure to respond to the question as a comment below! Enjoy! 

Reading & Questions for Cavafy, Poems 1916-1918

Note: this is an actual mummy at the Mebee-Gerrer Museum in Shawnee, which is from the period that many of Cavafy's poems take place (around 400-600 AD): go see it if you've never been! 

We won't have time to read through the entire volume of poems, but feel free to keep reading yourself--you can use any poem in the book for your Proper Paper #1 assignment. However, for next time, I want to focus on a specific kind of poem that Cavafy excelled at, the elegy or epitaph. 

* Since Nine O'Clock 

* Aristobolous

* Cesarion
* Nero's Term
* In the Harbour Town
* Tomb of Lanes
* Tomb of Iases
* Tomb of Ignatius
* In the Month of Athyr
* For Ammones
* Aemilianus Monae
* Grey

* Days of 1903

Only ONE question this time, but I want you to answer it for TWO different poems:

Q: Since each one of these poems is an epitaph about someone (or something) that has died, what is it that remains after death? How does Cavafy memorialize the remains of someone who once lived? What does he want us to see or remember? And how does this relate to some of the great themes of his work that we discussed in class (or, if you don't come to class, how does this relate to another poem that you read in the earlier selections)? 

Proper Paper #1: Your Own Private Ithaca (see new due date!)

“If a literary work is conceived as a succession of actions upon the understanding of a reader, then an interpretation of the work can be a story of that encounter, with its ups and downs...To interpret a work is to tell a story of reading” (Culler, Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction)

INTRO: One of the most popular forms of literary theory, “Reader Response Criticism,” suggests that interpretation is about the journey readers take with a given text, and in college, that journey occurs in the classroom. How we read a work is shaped, in large part, by how we first experience it. As you read these books chronologically from Week 1 to Week 8, you created a kind of inner narrative of what they mean, why they’re important, and how they relate to one another. So when you write a paper about them now, it tells a story of reading…of how you read them, and how your journey of reading led to discovering your own private ‘Ithaca.’ So for this first paper, I want you to show me a piece of this journey, and how reading one work shaped how you read the others—and made your own narrative of self-discovery.

PROMPT: To do that, I want you to choose ONE Cavafy poem that you can use as a THEORY. By “theory,” I mean a kind of thesis, or focus, in which to shine a light on the other two books in class. The beginning of your paper (1) should be a close reading of the poem, explaining how you read it, and what you think are the most important ideas Cavafy is trying to convey. Then, (2) you will use this poem to examine some aspects of both Manon Lescaut and at least one of the Chekhov plays. In other words, by reading the Cavafy poem first, how does it influence how we read the other two works: what new ideas or interpretations would we see once we read them? How could the poem actually be an ‘introduction’ of sorts to the novel and the play?

EX: I love the poem “Ithaca,” so I would write an analysis that illustrates how it represents Cavafy’s worldview and how it relates to a general view of life and experience. Then I would find moments in Manon and, say, The Seagull, that seem to benefit from Cavafy’s thesis. Where does the idea that “Ithaca…has nothing to give you any more” resonate in one or more of the characters of each work? Remember, your reading doesn’t have to be bulletproof, just plausible and (of course) interesting. I’m more interested in the voyage—not the ultimate destination (like “Ithaca” itself!). NOTE: You don’t have to use this poem—it’s just an example!

REQUIREMENTS

• Page limit…up to you
• Must use only ONE Cavafy poem as your focus, and you must analyze it first
• Must compare it to passages in Manon and one of the plays (but you can use more than one play if you wish)
• DUE THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 19^th, but NO LATER THAN FRIDAY BY 5pm!

Revised Schedule!

Below I have posted a new schedule for BOTH classes, changing a few dates and moving things back. I've had a hard time coming to terms with how this class works, and instead of looking at it day-by-day, I'm just looking at in terms of a single week. So throughout the week, this is the work I'll be posting, and all of it is due by your next face to face class. So now you don't have to worry about doing the blog on a Friday, which was never really the intention anyway. Note, too, that I moved the Polished Paper #2 assignment back. I'll be giving that to you in class next week (the 5th and 7th), and I'll post it on the blog for those of you who don't attend class. Let me know if you have any questions!  

OCTOBER

Week of the 5^th:            Discuss Cavafy, Poems II

                                    Video for Poems III

                                    Questions for Poems III

 

Week of the 12^th:          Discussion for Cavafy, Poems III

                                    Video for Botchan, Part I

 

Week of the 19^th:          Discussion for Botchan, Part I

                                    Questions for Botchan, Part II

                                    Polished Paper #2 by Friday by 5pm

 

Week of the 26^th:          Discussion for Botchan, Part II

                                    Video, The Postcolonial Nation

                                    Questions for Miguel Street, Part I

NOVEMBER  

Week of the 2^nd:           Discussion for Miguel Street, Part I

                                    Questions for Miguel Street, Part II

                                    Video for Miguel Street, Part III

 

Week of the 9^th:            Discussion for Miguel Street, Parts II-III

                                    Questions for The Lover, Part I

           Rough Paper #2 due Friday by 5pm

 

Week of the 16^th:          Discussion for The Lover, Part I

                                    Questions for The Lover, Part II

                                    Video for The Lover, Part II

 

Week of the 23^rd:          Discussion for The Lover, Part II 

                                    Questions for The Lover, Part III

 

DECEMBER 

Week of the 30^th:          Discussion for The Lover, Part III

                                    Video: Final Thoughts, Final Paper

 

Proper Paper #2 due TBA

Reading/Questions for Cavafy, Poems 1905-1915 (from The Collected Poems)

 

From Poems 1905-1915:

* The City
* Wise Men 

* Finished 

* The God Forsakes Anthony
* Monotony
* Ithaca
* As Best You Can
* Trojans
* Sculptor of Tyana
* In Church

* Very Seldom

* Painted

* At the Entrance of the Cafe
* One Night 

* Come Back
* Far Away

* He Vows 

* I Went 

Answer 2 of the following: 

Q1: In a poem like "Wise Men," Cavafy claims that mortals see present things, gods the things to come, and wise men that which is imminent. What is the difference between that which is present and that which is imminent? And who might these "wise men" be? Is there another poem that sheds light on this? 

Q2: Cavafy's most famous poem is "Ithaca," and it refers to Homer's The Odyssey--Odysseus is always trying to get back home to Ithaca. However, the poem argues that "Ithaca gave you the wondrous voyage:/without her you'd never had set out./But she has nothing to give you any more" (39). What do you think he means by this? Why is home never the destination you think it is, according to him? 

Q3: Many of this poems are frankly about defeat and futility, often using events of the past--like the Trojan War--to highlight this. According to many of these poems, what causes humans to give up or fold in the face of disaster? Why are so few of us heroic like the heroes of old? What makes humans so predictably human, and so predictably flawed? 

Q4: In the earlier poem "Desires," the poet reflects on what happens to desires that are never acted upon. How do some of these poems reflect on the opposite: what happens when you do act upon them? Is that the secret to a good life--simply to indulge in pleasure? Or is there a darker side to this as well? 

Video Lecture #5: Reading Metaphors

 Here's a shortish-long video about how to read and appreciate metaphors in poetry, and how we might read the metaphors in one of Cavafy's early poems, "Candles." Be sure to respond to the question at the end of the video with a COMMENT below. Hope "time flies" for you watching this video, so you don't feel like you "wasted your time" (P.S. those are metaphors). :) 

Reading/Questions for Cavafy's Poems, Part I

NOTE: I'll post a video soon to help you think about ways to read and approach poetry, and specifically, how to get the most out of Cavafy's poems. If you're not experienced in reading poetry, don't fret; just read slowly and try not to worry about the 'story' as much as the metaphors: how does the poet relate one things in terms of another? What is he trying to make us see in a new light? A poem is almost always a meditation on or a contemplation of something naturally occurring in life--clouds drifting past the moon, candles flickering in a darkened room, etc. A vivid image always reminds the poet of something else, something larger, and the point of them poem is to help us see it, too. 

READ THE FOLLOWING POEMS: Voices, Desires, Candles (3-5), An Old Man (5), Supplication, The Souls of Old Men (7), The First Step (7-9), The Windows, Walls (13), Waiting for the Barbarians (15-17). 

Answer 2 of the following:

Q1: Does the poet-narrator of each poem seem consistent, or do they seem to be coming from different people? If you had to characterize the speaker of several poems, who would he (or she) be?

Q2: How does Cavafy take a completely ordinary object in one of these poems and transform it into a metaphor for something larger? Which poem made you see the object in a completely different light? Why is the object/metaphor so effective?

Q3: In his famous poem, “Waiting for the Barbarians,” he imagines the tension and despair as Romans await the arrival of invading Barbarians. Yet the poem ends with the news that “there are no barbarians anymore.” They seem disappointed, because “Those people were some sort of a solution.” What do you think he means by this? How does the poem try to explain why barbarians could be a “solution”? And what ‘problem’ are they answering in the first place?

Q4: In the poem, “The First Step,” a young poet complains to an accomplished poet that he will never climb very high on the “stairway of Poetry.” How does the poem challenge the conception of poetic success and the ultimate aims of being an artist? Is going ‘higher’ necessarily better? Why or why not (according to the poem)? 

Video Lecture #4: Chekhov and the Uses of Comedy

 For Friday (and the weekend), here's a video about comedy--how we can define it and understand what it's doing, even when it's making us cry (from laughter, or from horror). Watch this after reading our two short plays, The Bear and A Proposal, which we'll discuss next week! The BLOG RESPONSE is at the end of the video, so don't forget to LEAVE A COMMENT! 

ALSO: don't forget to turn in your Rough Paper #1 on Friday, either by e-mail or to the box on my door! 

Reading/Questions for Chekhov's The Bear & The Proposal

 NOTE: Sorry for the delay--my internet was out for a good part of the day and I couldn't post this until now. We'll discuss these two plays next week, and I'll post another lecture video on the nature of comedy on Friday. ALSO--don't forget to turn in your Rough Paper #1 on Friday by 5pm. 

Answer 2 of the following:

Q1: Both of these short plays are considered 'farces,' meaning they're geared for easy laughs and broad social satire. In many ways, they're the equivalent of sketch comedy like what you find on SNL or shows like Schitt's Creek, etc. However, Chekhov claimed that The Seagull was also a comedy (if not a farce), so they must have some things in common, too. What does reading these two short plays help you see or appreciate about the humor of The Seagull? Are these plays like miniature Seagulls? Could you call them a trial run for the later play?

Q2: Both plays have unmarried women (though one is technically a widow) receiving proposals of marriage: why is the very idea of a proposal humorous? How does it allow Chekhov to take a jab at some of society's most sacred (and secret) taboos? You might also consider why in "The Proposal," the father is willing to marry off his daughter to a man he seemingly hates and is telling to "go to hell."

Q3: In The Bear, Smirnov mocks Popova by saying "take a good look at any one of these romantic creatures: petticoats and hot air, divine transports, the whole works; then take a look at her soul. Pure crocodile" (27). How might The Seagull explain where he got these unflattering views on women and feminine behavior? Who might he be referring to from that play?

Q4: Typically, a comedy is a play that ends in a marriage or the promise of a marriage, so both plays qualify. But beyond the technical definition, are these really happy endings? Do the plays restore the promise of happiness for both parties? Or do they break off early (only One Act, after all) because extending it into a second or third act would veer into tragedy? 

Video Lecture #3 & The Seagull, Act 4

 For next week, be sure to finish the play and watch this video which gives you a little background about Chekhov and the first productions of The Seagull. In many ways, this is a very autobiographical play, so you might hear some echoes of his own life once you know a little more about it. Be sure to respond to the question at the end of the video as a COMMENT. See you in class!

Reading/Questions for Chekhov's The Seagull, Acts 2 & 3

 Answer two of the following for next week, and be sure to watch Act 1 (two posts down) if you haven't already. It will definitely help you keep all the actors straight and appreciate their relationships. 

Q1: Discuss a scene or even a small passage of dialogue where you think the play is most 'comedic.' Remember, Chekhov claims that this play is a comedy, even though many directors and actors are suspicious, and many perform it as a straight tragedy. Is there any moment where we can take him at his word? Is anything genuinely funny? Or is it a different kind of comedy?

Q2: Trigorin, who barely says two words in Act 1, launches into a massive monologue in Act 2. Many believe that Trigorin is a stand-in for Chekhov himself, or at least very close to the way he saw himself. What is the purpose of this monologue, and why is it not only a contradiction to many of Nina's beliefs, but also of Irina and Konstantin's as well?

Q3: At the beginning of Act 2, Irina tells Masha that "Because I work all the time, I live life to the fullest...I don't think about old age, I don't think about dying. Whatever happens happens" (125). Why does this carry a whiff of Manon's outlook and philosophy? Do you think she is the "Manon" of the play? Or is her coolness merely an act? 

Q4: Much of the tension of this play is between the upper and lower/middle classes, since some people live here year round, while others only come here to 'party.' Discuss a scene where Chekhov makes this tension apparent, and how might he want us to read this? Whose side does he seem to be on? 

Rough Paper #1 Assignment: Due Friday, September 18th

 A so-called ‘rough’ paper is exactly that: an attempt to work out ideas on paper and not worry too much about being polished or turning in your best writing. It falls somewhere between the reading questions and a polished paper. Think bigger, but don’t try necessarily harder. Just try to have fun with these and not worry about the grade—they’re worth less, and you can always revise them anyway. For this paper, I’m mostly interested in the connections you can forge between the two works, each one of which is quite revolutionary in its way and was shocking to its contemporaries.

Choose ONE of the following:

OP1:     How does each work share a common philosophy (or rejection?) of love? How do they examine the attitudes and actions of love, and why might both be critical of what men and women do in the name of love? And why might both works be critical of ideals in love?

OP2:     How might we read each work as a condemnation of upper-class values and the accepted class structure? In general, each work concerns people who have wealth and luxury: what use do they make of these advantages? And what happens to the lower-class people who come into their path?

OP3:     How might each work be playing with Shakespeare’s famous idea that “all the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players; they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts” (As You Like It). In other words, how is each work self-consciously theatrical in satirizing how people fall into predictable roles and patterns? Do people ‘act’ rather than feel? Follow the lines of their class rather than the will of their heart? Is society (or something else) our ultimate director?

OP4:     Discuss two characters (one from each work) that seem to compliment each other in something more than just their actions (their morality, their philosophy, their psychology, etc). What makes them so alike? Why might Chekhov have been inspired from the earlier character, and how did he adapt/revise this character into his own time and play?

REQUIREMENTS

• CLOSE READING: Which means, use the text to illustrate your ideas and help us understand what a passage is really saying. Don’t assume that everyone understands it. If you quote something, explain it to us—show us the small nuances of a given speech or description. A single sentence can change an entire book, after all!
• NO PLOT SUMMARY: Readers don’t need to know what the play is about—assume they’ve already read it. They need to see what you think about it. Guide us, don’t summarize things to us.
• CITATIONS: When you quote something, introduce the work (which can be as easy as saying, “In Act One of The Seagull, Trigorin says…”) and be sure to cite the page number at the end.
• DUE FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 18^th BY 5pm (e-mail or in my box)