Post A
Vocabulary
AIB- (86) American Institute of Banking
sieve- (88) meshed utensil
Figurative Language
'-I'm going to the shops, Leanne. Can I get you anything?
The face lit up. She sat up on the couch. She smiled- grinned; the little girl wo'd danced around the kitchen, trying to distract her father, trying to charm him from her mother's broken body.
-bottle of something would be nice, she said' (85)
This is a metaphor, comparing the Leanne who thinks her mother will understand her situation, seeing as they are the same- seeing as she distracted her father from beating her too long. The little Leanne and the one who is broken and looking for escape.
'She misses her second pillow. She feels too flat, too close to the mattress.' (97)
Metaphor- Second pillow to me means her mask. She lost her drink, and lost the mask that came with it. She lives in reality now, which can be less fluffy than we think at times.
'The bottle was on the floor beside Leanne's bad leg, with the coke and a cup. Half empty. Half full.' (102)
While I'm not exactly sure what this means, I'm pretty sure that it's a metaphor for how Paula is feeling at seeing her efforts wasted.
Theme: I would wager a guess that the emerging theme is Leanne vs. Paula. I think that the author is delving into that vein a little bit, and I enjoy exploring it. Leanne is the old Paula- she gets to see exactly what she was like, and see if she can change who 'she' is to become.
Quote:
'Leanne's hands were gone and Paula fell back. She sat on the floor. She was gasping. The bottle was beside her.
Post B
Dear Mr. Doyle,
I am absolutely and thoroughly confused by your book. It is exceptionally well written, it is powerful in all the right places, and it genuinly makes me think... but I can't make heads or tails of it. I suppose halfway isn't far enough to decide whether I like your novel or not, also taking into consideration that this isn't the type of story I usually read, but I'm a bit shaky on the theme. Usualy when I pick up a book it's because the theme caught my eye. But I suppose this is interesting- the theme hidden between the lines. The thing that I want most for this novel is for it to all tie together in the end. I am already starting to see some ties, but there's no real connection between this and that and everything around their heads. I'm glad to see characters emerging, especially Leanne. I have to say, she is my least favorite character, but she intruigues me the most. How odd. And then there's Paula... who is eccentric and down to earth. She doesn't much tickle my fancy either, as much as it pains me to admit it to you. What I do enjoy about the story is how it moves. There's backwards forwards land, and then there's present past tense land, and in between there's thought and reality land. Quite the little map for me to follow- I've gotten lost on more than one occasion too and had to go back a few miles for directions... or a dictionary. No matter though, I generally like things that confuse me, and this is one of them. So yes, favorites next, shall we? Jack. I don't know why, but Jack is my favorite character so far. Probably because I feel like he is the most like me. I like Paula the cleaning lady- a little bit of a metaphor for her life as an alcoholic trying to clean up where she's spilled and where others have. My favorite 'theme' is the Paula-Leanne wars. I love the mother daugther communication and craziness.
I hope you write more novels, I've gotten quite a few reccomendations to become well read in your stories.
Best of luck,
-Dani B.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Sunday, November 25, 2007
This is my On the Waterfront Essay, I hope you all enjoy it!
Dani B.
Mrs. Burgess
Enriched English 6
25 November 2007
The View From the Waterfront
On the Waterfront is a captivating watch full of drama and action. It stars Marlon Brando as Terry Mallory, Eva Marie Saint as Edie Doyle, and Karl Malden as the Reverend. In this film, the characters face challenges that decide if they will become the people they want to be, or the people who they despise.
I really liked the ethical dilemma in this film. Actually, it would be the dilemmas, because each character had a unique one that really pulled the theme in all directions. On The Waterfront reminded me of how strong bonds between those we love and ourselves are, and how easily we cast aside forced bonds which can sometimes result life or death because of those we care about. In particular, I enjoyed the tension between the two worlds that constantly nagged at Terry. I thought that his predicament was a necessary message to myself and the rest of the world- to hold on to what you love because sometimes it can be too late to save it by the time you stop dancing around what you know you want. I had a much higher opinion of On the Waterfront than of 400 Blows, which could be because Waterfront was in English… and because I connected to the message and characters more.
Three themes that really caught my attention were trust, loyalty and revenge. Each of the characters faces these themes to some extent. Trust was the theme that encompassed the entire film. For example, Edie chose to trust Terry for no other reason than he seemed like a good person the first time she met him. Then, after he dug up the compassion to tell Edie that he set up her brother’s demise, she still trusts him- against her better judgment as seen when Terry is on the run from Johnny Friendly and breaks open her door to get to her. Loyalty was the second most prominent theme in the film, as seen between Terry and Johnny Friendly, and Terry and Edie. I thought that this film did an excellent job in portraying the tension between the two cases. Also, it showed the contrast between the mob and the girl. Terry eventually has to choose where his loyalties lay with the climax- his brother’s murder. Also, on a smaller scale, Edie had an almost simplistic choice of loyalty (in contrast with most of the other characters’) between her father’s judgment of Terry and Terry himself. Loyalty was a very powerful theme in the film. Lastly, revenge was a large chunk of the film in general for the characters. In the very beginning, we see Edie laying over her brother’s corpse preaching revenge for her brother. This is paralleled later in the film when Edie looks on to Terry swearing revenge on Johnny Friendly for the death of his brother, which he would have gotten if not for the Reverend forcing him to do the thing right and take Friendly to court. I think that the director wanted to show in this, that revenge has a ripple effect on those it touches, and that if someone doesn’t stop it, it will keep spreading.
The three most prominent and important characters were without a doubt Terry, Edie and the Reverend. They each represent a corner of the triangle of the solution to a problem larger than any one of them individually, but one that together, they are able tackle head on. I think Terry was the most complex character with the main focus put on him for that reason. Edie would be next, in my opinion, because of her good nature. She is the one who keeps Terry in line and helps him make the right decision in the end. The Reverend is quite black and white, but he is a strong personality in On the Waterfront. In utilizing his strength in standing up for what’s right, he is the person who holds everything together. Quite the trio.
The P.O.V. followed the conscience of the viewer, mainly focusing on Terry, Edie and the Reverend. This was effective in ensuring that the viewer got the message that the director was trying to send about morality and conscience . I really liked the director’s way of portraying just the bits that were the most important to the growth of the story and the moral dilemmas.
Possibly my favorite actor was Marlon Brando who played Terry Mallory in the drama. He not only delivered the emotion at the correct times, but made the viewer believe his indecision and frustration at being in the middle. He also played his double role quite well, and I found myself admiring the way that he could go between knowing that his brother was dead to showing such love for Edie in a time of crisis. I enjoyed listening to the way Edie’s careful, precise accent contrast with Terry’s thicker, jumbled one. This helped me scope out how muddled in his life was, because of his pronunciation. This changes in the end when Terry shouts at Johnny Friendly exactly what he thinks of him. Then the viewer can hear him clearly, suggesting that his accent, therefore his vision had been cleared enough for him to make sense of things. It impressed me how effectively he could use that tool.
Johnny Friendly, the main antagonist of the movie was one whose character I didn’t necessarily like, but who did an excellent job in terms of making the audience united in hating him. Lee J. Cobb, especially in the court scene, did a very effective job of creating turmoil amongst the other characters. His hooked nose suggested that he was a sneak and a cheater. The thing that I most enjoyed when watching his acting is when he says “Gimme! Gimme!” in the very beginning. He was attempting to be ‘kind’ to his business associates, but this one phrase reveals his true character. Also, just the way he held himself suggested that he was either very important or a thug.
Eva Marie Saint was my third favorite actress in terms of acting. I liked her character’s scope of knowing that all the horrors of death brought to her, and at the same time, how she stayed optimistic and helped Terry recover from his need for revenge long enough to think clearly. Her performance was one of the hardest to play, in my opinion (mostly because of her capacity to love absolutely everything all the time).
My favorite part about the movie besides the acting was the setting. The way that Terry and his younger friends sat on a roof with a pigeon coop to occupy them really gave way a to sense of height and lack of gravity holding the boys down. Another reason the set gave me such a thrill to behold was the way the characters held it. These days, we see our towns and neighborhoods as places to all work together to keep clean and safe. But also, we take care to stay away from actually taking ownership of any of it, like the job of mowing the grass by the sidewalks. I enjoyed seeing such a difference in the movie, where the people of the city actually owned it, and took pride in claiming their own little corners as theirs.
Since the movie was in black and white, the lighting played a much bigger part in the telling of the story. For example, when the truck was chasing Terry and Edie down an alley, and the world is bathed in threatening night, the viewer notices the gleam of the doorknob that draws Terry’s attention and saves his life and Edie’s by allowing them to escape. The director uses shadow and lighting to trick the audience of viewers into believing things as well, such as at the very end when the viewer believes that Terry will black out because he is heading towards the black mouth of the work area. I thought that that was a clever deceptive trick.
The Leonard Bernstein track expressed the emotions, the actions and the things left unsaid by many of the characters. One great example of this is shown in the very beginning of the film when the man in charge of the workplace throws out the working coins into the mob, which goes into a fighting frenzy against itself to grab up whatever it can get. There is a moment where the camera focuses on a man punching another, and a trumpet laughs in the background. What the camera sees with it’s peripheral vision is the man in charge of the workforce chortling to himself. What I wasn’t so much in love with are the scores for the love scenes. They seem too powerful, too loud, and therefore they wash over the listener’s head. Sometimes they can seem just noise. But overall, I enjoyed the music.
The camera was usually straight on the face, straight forward, and at no angles when it was focused on the protagonists. This was a good way to show the viewer that nothing is being hidden from the camera. With the antagonists however, especially Johnny Friendly, the shot duration is shorter and the camera angles are always in odd positions, never facing the antagonists face on. For example, in the warehouse/hideout of Johnny Friendly, none of the men got a close up or a straight angle. Possibly this implies the existence of crooked personalities? It also gives the impression of shiftiness in these characters, and makes the viewer not trust them.
I was a fan of the photography in the film because it was relatively easy to comprehend. My favorite shot in the film was after the murder of Kayo in the workplace when the Reverend is being raised on the lifting platform above all of the workers. This gave the viewer the impression that what the Reverend says is what he absolutely believes and that his word and his faith is above that of the plain workman. It also gives the audience a greater impression of his holiness. Another impressive cinematic element in the film was how in the very beginning Joey Doyle’s falling body was seen from below, and this not only gives the viewer a sense of impending doom, but a greater fear of the murderer. It’s a rather blatant way to hand out the exposition.
On The Waterfront can easily be both compared and contrasted with Arthur Miller’s All My Sons. Terry, in On the Waterfront set up the death of an innocent person for the personal gain for himself and his brother. In All My Sons, Joe Keller sends off a batch of cracked cylinder heads to the plane manufacturers, knowing that the alternative would be having his children suffer the depression. However, his choice leads 21 young men, and his own son to death. The outcome in both cases, is the guilt catching up to both men and each surrendering to it. Another primary conflict that parallels in both stories is the presence of a few symbols. In the novel All My Sons, Arthur Miller sets the scene with a fallen tree, symbolic of one of the sons, Larry’s death. I believe that this same idea is seen in On the Waterfront when Terry’s pigeon collection, symbolic of life and freedom and flight are strangled to death. In both cases, the main characters have to face reality after noticing that their symbols of hope are no more. On a grander scale, the themes of the two dramas can also be compared. At the end of All My Sons, the father in the novel, Joe Keller decides to take his own life because he recognizes that all the boys he killed with his decision were, in essence, his sons as well. Similarly, In On the Waterfront, Terry’s brother is killed by an organization that wants to take out any person who disagrees with them. This means that the whole waterfront is being suppressed by their ways, and none of the men that Terry works with are able to earn enough to support themselves, sometimes, they’re not allowed to even work. It takes Terry standing up to the main antagonist, Johnny Friendly, near the finale for his brothers of the waterfront to be avenged and freed.
In contrast, however, All My Sons’ Kate is in denial about the reality of her son’s death and her husband’s guilt. The book also centers around the issue of acceptance. However, On the Waterfront when Terry tells Edie that he set up her brother’s death, her common sense bids her to accept and make sense of the situation. She is a much stronger character. The two main females in both dramas are therefore quite different. Also, the settings of the two are quite different. In Waterfront, the characters live in a wide, cold city with buildings and industries as far as the eye can see. This is a deep contrast with All My Sons where nature surrounds the little abode, and the story takes place in one house for the entire play.
I liked this film for a variety of reasons, mostly because the characters were so enchanting. I loved the acting, that being my favorite part of the film. Also, the editing had an excellent effect as well, creating suspense at just the right times. For example, the court scene where the shot was cut just as the verdict was being given, and the attention switched from a flat angle to a T.V. screen’s vision. I would also recommend this film because Leonard Bernstein did an amazing job at capturing the moment with his brilliant scores. This made the movie not only fun to watch, but to listen to as well. The best part about the movie that everyone will enjoy is the issue of morality in the film. Terry starts out letting himself be jerked around and used as bait. But through a series of events that change him specifically, he finds the strength to do what is right and set the rest of society’s moral compasses straight. I would recommend this film to a wide audience, and anyone looking for a captivating watch.
In conclusion, Waterfront encompassed the issues of morality, betrayal and love on the screen. It is an excellent watch that makes the reader question what is right and what is easy. There is only one question left at the end of the film that the viewers have to decide on for themselves: Does violence stop because of one man, or many men as a whole? Does is ever cease?
Dani B.
Mrs. Burgess
Enriched English 6
25 November 2007
The View From the Waterfront
On the Waterfront is a captivating watch full of drama and action. It stars Marlon Brando as Terry Mallory, Eva Marie Saint as Edie Doyle, and Karl Malden as the Reverend. In this film, the characters face challenges that decide if they will become the people they want to be, or the people who they despise.
I really liked the ethical dilemma in this film. Actually, it would be the dilemmas, because each character had a unique one that really pulled the theme in all directions. On The Waterfront reminded me of how strong bonds between those we love and ourselves are, and how easily we cast aside forced bonds which can sometimes result life or death because of those we care about. In particular, I enjoyed the tension between the two worlds that constantly nagged at Terry. I thought that his predicament was a necessary message to myself and the rest of the world- to hold on to what you love because sometimes it can be too late to save it by the time you stop dancing around what you know you want. I had a much higher opinion of On the Waterfront than of 400 Blows, which could be because Waterfront was in English… and because I connected to the message and characters more.
Three themes that really caught my attention were trust, loyalty and revenge. Each of the characters faces these themes to some extent. Trust was the theme that encompassed the entire film. For example, Edie chose to trust Terry for no other reason than he seemed like a good person the first time she met him. Then, after he dug up the compassion to tell Edie that he set up her brother’s demise, she still trusts him- against her better judgment as seen when Terry is on the run from Johnny Friendly and breaks open her door to get to her. Loyalty was the second most prominent theme in the film, as seen between Terry and Johnny Friendly, and Terry and Edie. I thought that this film did an excellent job in portraying the tension between the two cases. Also, it showed the contrast between the mob and the girl. Terry eventually has to choose where his loyalties lay with the climax- his brother’s murder. Also, on a smaller scale, Edie had an almost simplistic choice of loyalty (in contrast with most of the other characters’) between her father’s judgment of Terry and Terry himself. Loyalty was a very powerful theme in the film. Lastly, revenge was a large chunk of the film in general for the characters. In the very beginning, we see Edie laying over her brother’s corpse preaching revenge for her brother. This is paralleled later in the film when Edie looks on to Terry swearing revenge on Johnny Friendly for the death of his brother, which he would have gotten if not for the Reverend forcing him to do the thing right and take Friendly to court. I think that the director wanted to show in this, that revenge has a ripple effect on those it touches, and that if someone doesn’t stop it, it will keep spreading.
The three most prominent and important characters were without a doubt Terry, Edie and the Reverend. They each represent a corner of the triangle of the solution to a problem larger than any one of them individually, but one that together, they are able tackle head on. I think Terry was the most complex character with the main focus put on him for that reason. Edie would be next, in my opinion, because of her good nature. She is the one who keeps Terry in line and helps him make the right decision in the end. The Reverend is quite black and white, but he is a strong personality in On the Waterfront. In utilizing his strength in standing up for what’s right, he is the person who holds everything together. Quite the trio.
The P.O.V. followed the conscience of the viewer, mainly focusing on Terry, Edie and the Reverend. This was effective in ensuring that the viewer got the message that the director was trying to send about morality and conscience . I really liked the director’s way of portraying just the bits that were the most important to the growth of the story and the moral dilemmas.
Possibly my favorite actor was Marlon Brando who played Terry Mallory in the drama. He not only delivered the emotion at the correct times, but made the viewer believe his indecision and frustration at being in the middle. He also played his double role quite well, and I found myself admiring the way that he could go between knowing that his brother was dead to showing such love for Edie in a time of crisis. I enjoyed listening to the way Edie’s careful, precise accent contrast with Terry’s thicker, jumbled one. This helped me scope out how muddled in his life was, because of his pronunciation. This changes in the end when Terry shouts at Johnny Friendly exactly what he thinks of him. Then the viewer can hear him clearly, suggesting that his accent, therefore his vision had been cleared enough for him to make sense of things. It impressed me how effectively he could use that tool.
Johnny Friendly, the main antagonist of the movie was one whose character I didn’t necessarily like, but who did an excellent job in terms of making the audience united in hating him. Lee J. Cobb, especially in the court scene, did a very effective job of creating turmoil amongst the other characters. His hooked nose suggested that he was a sneak and a cheater. The thing that I most enjoyed when watching his acting is when he says “Gimme! Gimme!” in the very beginning. He was attempting to be ‘kind’ to his business associates, but this one phrase reveals his true character. Also, just the way he held himself suggested that he was either very important or a thug.
Eva Marie Saint was my third favorite actress in terms of acting. I liked her character’s scope of knowing that all the horrors of death brought to her, and at the same time, how she stayed optimistic and helped Terry recover from his need for revenge long enough to think clearly. Her performance was one of the hardest to play, in my opinion (mostly because of her capacity to love absolutely everything all the time).
My favorite part about the movie besides the acting was the setting. The way that Terry and his younger friends sat on a roof with a pigeon coop to occupy them really gave way a to sense of height and lack of gravity holding the boys down. Another reason the set gave me such a thrill to behold was the way the characters held it. These days, we see our towns and neighborhoods as places to all work together to keep clean and safe. But also, we take care to stay away from actually taking ownership of any of it, like the job of mowing the grass by the sidewalks. I enjoyed seeing such a difference in the movie, where the people of the city actually owned it, and took pride in claiming their own little corners as theirs.
Since the movie was in black and white, the lighting played a much bigger part in the telling of the story. For example, when the truck was chasing Terry and Edie down an alley, and the world is bathed in threatening night, the viewer notices the gleam of the doorknob that draws Terry’s attention and saves his life and Edie’s by allowing them to escape. The director uses shadow and lighting to trick the audience of viewers into believing things as well, such as at the very end when the viewer believes that Terry will black out because he is heading towards the black mouth of the work area. I thought that that was a clever deceptive trick.
The Leonard Bernstein track expressed the emotions, the actions and the things left unsaid by many of the characters. One great example of this is shown in the very beginning of the film when the man in charge of the workplace throws out the working coins into the mob, which goes into a fighting frenzy against itself to grab up whatever it can get. There is a moment where the camera focuses on a man punching another, and a trumpet laughs in the background. What the camera sees with it’s peripheral vision is the man in charge of the workforce chortling to himself. What I wasn’t so much in love with are the scores for the love scenes. They seem too powerful, too loud, and therefore they wash over the listener’s head. Sometimes they can seem just noise. But overall, I enjoyed the music.
The camera was usually straight on the face, straight forward, and at no angles when it was focused on the protagonists. This was a good way to show the viewer that nothing is being hidden from the camera. With the antagonists however, especially Johnny Friendly, the shot duration is shorter and the camera angles are always in odd positions, never facing the antagonists face on. For example, in the warehouse/hideout of Johnny Friendly, none of the men got a close up or a straight angle. Possibly this implies the existence of crooked personalities? It also gives the impression of shiftiness in these characters, and makes the viewer not trust them.
I was a fan of the photography in the film because it was relatively easy to comprehend. My favorite shot in the film was after the murder of Kayo in the workplace when the Reverend is being raised on the lifting platform above all of the workers. This gave the viewer the impression that what the Reverend says is what he absolutely believes and that his word and his faith is above that of the plain workman. It also gives the audience a greater impression of his holiness. Another impressive cinematic element in the film was how in the very beginning Joey Doyle’s falling body was seen from below, and this not only gives the viewer a sense of impending doom, but a greater fear of the murderer. It’s a rather blatant way to hand out the exposition.
On The Waterfront can easily be both compared and contrasted with Arthur Miller’s All My Sons. Terry, in On the Waterfront set up the death of an innocent person for the personal gain for himself and his brother. In All My Sons, Joe Keller sends off a batch of cracked cylinder heads to the plane manufacturers, knowing that the alternative would be having his children suffer the depression. However, his choice leads 21 young men, and his own son to death. The outcome in both cases, is the guilt catching up to both men and each surrendering to it. Another primary conflict that parallels in both stories is the presence of a few symbols. In the novel All My Sons, Arthur Miller sets the scene with a fallen tree, symbolic of one of the sons, Larry’s death. I believe that this same idea is seen in On the Waterfront when Terry’s pigeon collection, symbolic of life and freedom and flight are strangled to death. In both cases, the main characters have to face reality after noticing that their symbols of hope are no more. On a grander scale, the themes of the two dramas can also be compared. At the end of All My Sons, the father in the novel, Joe Keller decides to take his own life because he recognizes that all the boys he killed with his decision were, in essence, his sons as well. Similarly, In On the Waterfront, Terry’s brother is killed by an organization that wants to take out any person who disagrees with them. This means that the whole waterfront is being suppressed by their ways, and none of the men that Terry works with are able to earn enough to support themselves, sometimes, they’re not allowed to even work. It takes Terry standing up to the main antagonist, Johnny Friendly, near the finale for his brothers of the waterfront to be avenged and freed.
In contrast, however, All My Sons’ Kate is in denial about the reality of her son’s death and her husband’s guilt. The book also centers around the issue of acceptance. However, On the Waterfront when Terry tells Edie that he set up her brother’s death, her common sense bids her to accept and make sense of the situation. She is a much stronger character. The two main females in both dramas are therefore quite different. Also, the settings of the two are quite different. In Waterfront, the characters live in a wide, cold city with buildings and industries as far as the eye can see. This is a deep contrast with All My Sons where nature surrounds the little abode, and the story takes place in one house for the entire play.
I liked this film for a variety of reasons, mostly because the characters were so enchanting. I loved the acting, that being my favorite part of the film. Also, the editing had an excellent effect as well, creating suspense at just the right times. For example, the court scene where the shot was cut just as the verdict was being given, and the attention switched from a flat angle to a T.V. screen’s vision. I would also recommend this film because Leonard Bernstein did an amazing job at capturing the moment with his brilliant scores. This made the movie not only fun to watch, but to listen to as well. The best part about the movie that everyone will enjoy is the issue of morality in the film. Terry starts out letting himself be jerked around and used as bait. But through a series of events that change him specifically, he finds the strength to do what is right and set the rest of society’s moral compasses straight. I would recommend this film to a wide audience, and anyone looking for a captivating watch.
In conclusion, Waterfront encompassed the issues of morality, betrayal and love on the screen. It is an excellent watch that makes the reader question what is right and what is easy. There is only one question left at the end of the film that the viewers have to decide on for themselves: Does violence stop because of one man, or many men as a whole? Does is ever cease?
Monday, November 19, 2007
42-83
A
alco- short for alcoholic - 53
anorak- hooded waterproof parka - 74
'Leanne moves, every part of her jumps, like a puppet whose strings have been tapped. She raises her hand'. (70)
Example of a similie. 'Like a puppet', is her daughter Leanne.
'Leanne tries to smell the air between them, but her nose is still full of the mountains'.
This is metaphoracle language, she is saying that she can't sense anything because she is still full of her latest adventure. (64)
'She's the only white woman' (54)
This is a symbol. For her discomfort. She always claims not to be racist or uncomfortable in any way, however, I think that she's just uncomfortable with the fact that 'they don't talk'. She thinks that like their population in her country, their silence is growing larger as well.
''You've no right to lecture me, mum.'
'I know."
This quote is the developing plot in two lines. Paula's relationship with her children is growing in intensity, and we're starting to get more backgroung on them. And when she tries to tell Leanne that she shouldn't drink, Leanne throws it back at her.
Likewise, the theme of the book overall that had been protruding from Paula's mind is the theme of cycles. That everything happens again, and that if you don't stop something, eventually, there will be a ripple effect, and it will continue to repeat over and over again.
B
Like I said before, Paula’s past is beginning to re emerge and with flashbacks of her children leaving, coming back and leaving again, we begin to see some patterns. Paula, for example, is proud of her progress at avoiding the bottle. Her daughter Leanne, however, is not. She took a whole hour, according to Paula to yell and throw old events back into her mother’s face- things that Paula didn’t believe were legitimate anymore. Furthermore, Paula cannot protect herself from the onslaught of insults and old wounds being reopened. Leanne seems to be the antagonist in the story so far. Also, another character that I just don’t like right now is Paula’s sister Caramel. The one with money, who doesn’t consciously do it, but flaunts it. She always offers not so inconspicuous ‘let me help you, and I’ll be a great person and everyone will love me’ hints. For some reason, that really bugs me. She seems nice enough, and the funny thing is that I probably would have done the same thing for a sister who was so low. But for some reason, (probably because it’s in Paula’s point of view) I can’t stand her. So, Paula also had another child as well, John Paul. He is a heroin addict- and he disappeared for a few years off of Paula’s radar. And the reader got a look at him briefly, when there was a small amount of dialogue between Paula and he. It was the two of them discussing which of them was clean now. Turns out, it was actually John Paul. So yes, very odd, interesting book so far.
alco- short for alcoholic - 53
anorak- hooded waterproof parka - 74
'Leanne moves, every part of her jumps, like a puppet whose strings have been tapped. She raises her hand'. (70)
Example of a similie. 'Like a puppet', is her daughter Leanne.
'Leanne tries to smell the air between them, but her nose is still full of the mountains'.
This is metaphoracle language, she is saying that she can't sense anything because she is still full of her latest adventure. (64)
'She's the only white woman' (54)
This is a symbol. For her discomfort. She always claims not to be racist or uncomfortable in any way, however, I think that she's just uncomfortable with the fact that 'they don't talk'. She thinks that like their population in her country, their silence is growing larger as well.
''You've no right to lecture me, mum.'
'I know."
This quote is the developing plot in two lines. Paula's relationship with her children is growing in intensity, and we're starting to get more backgroung on them. And when she tries to tell Leanne that she shouldn't drink, Leanne throws it back at her.
Likewise, the theme of the book overall that had been protruding from Paula's mind is the theme of cycles. That everything happens again, and that if you don't stop something, eventually, there will be a ripple effect, and it will continue to repeat over and over again.
B
Like I said before, Paula’s past is beginning to re emerge and with flashbacks of her children leaving, coming back and leaving again, we begin to see some patterns. Paula, for example, is proud of her progress at avoiding the bottle. Her daughter Leanne, however, is not. She took a whole hour, according to Paula to yell and throw old events back into her mother’s face- things that Paula didn’t believe were legitimate anymore. Furthermore, Paula cannot protect herself from the onslaught of insults and old wounds being reopened. Leanne seems to be the antagonist in the story so far. Also, another character that I just don’t like right now is Paula’s sister Caramel. The one with money, who doesn’t consciously do it, but flaunts it. She always offers not so inconspicuous ‘let me help you, and I’ll be a great person and everyone will love me’ hints. For some reason, that really bugs me. She seems nice enough, and the funny thing is that I probably would have done the same thing for a sister who was so low. But for some reason, (probably because it’s in Paula’s point of view) I can’t stand her. So, Paula also had another child as well, John Paul. He is a heroin addict- and he disappeared for a few years off of Paula’s radar. And the reader got a look at him briefly, when there was a small amount of dialogue between Paula and he. It was the two of them discussing which of them was clean now. Turns out, it was actually John Paul. So yes, very odd, interesting book so far.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
1-41
Post A
nixer (37) - nothing (a 'nothing' glance)
rind (23) -outer emotional layer
"She wants a drink.
The house is empty." (2)
Symbolism is shown in this quote, because the emptiness represents the drink.
"The pride takes care of the humiliation every time. Kills it dead as stone." (4)
Personification- 'Killed it dead as stone' is very human.
"She brushes her teeth. The important ones are there. The ones in the front. The missing ones aren't seen, unless she smiles too wide." (11)
I'd like to say that this is a metaphor... basically she relates her teeth to her happiness. If she gets her hopes up, then things might fall away.
Quote: "She can't blame herself for staring to drink. She can, but she won't." (22) This shows the exposition of the story, in that the main character is recovering from alcoholism. She is dealing not only with withdrawl, but with the guilt and the emotions that the drink 'held back' from her.
Theme: The struggle in the story for the main character is alcohol. It's not just the drinking but the emotions that go with it. This woman is trying to catch up with her life, the life that she left behind for the bottle.
Post B
I think since this is the first post, I’ll begin by telling you about the protagonist, Paula Spencer. She is a recovering alcoholic, and a mother. Her children, Jack, Leanne and Nicola are quite different from each other. Nicola is the oldest, has children and is very well off. I think her role in the book is to show extravagance and wealth. Leanne is an alcoholic just like her mother, and is described as “Mad, funny, mad, good, mad, brainy, mad, lovely, and frightening (2). Jack is probably the best that Paula had at the moment, as he is just about 16. On page three, Paula reveals to the reader that she thinks he will break hearts because he has a ruffle-able head, and is a good kid. We hear a bit of dialogue involving Jack, and the reader can make a judgment that he is a relatively nice guy. Paula’s husband died in a previous novel, and we only know so far that she threw him out. Nothing out of the ordinary, in Paula’s mind. She seems bitter, optimistic, and wishful, and to her, the world is relatively small. There is no place to go other than the small market on the side of the road. She isn’t very observant, but we do know that she doesn’t really see things in color. I think that she will undergo a change, however small that will pull her out of her funk sooner or later. Overall, Paula Spencer is teetering on the brink of recovery, but only just.
nixer (37) - nothing (a 'nothing' glance)
rind (23) -outer emotional layer
"She wants a drink.
The house is empty." (2)
Symbolism is shown in this quote, because the emptiness represents the drink.
"The pride takes care of the humiliation every time. Kills it dead as stone." (4)
Personification- 'Killed it dead as stone' is very human.
"She brushes her teeth. The important ones are there. The ones in the front. The missing ones aren't seen, unless she smiles too wide." (11)
I'd like to say that this is a metaphor... basically she relates her teeth to her happiness. If she gets her hopes up, then things might fall away.
Quote: "She can't blame herself for staring to drink. She can, but she won't." (22) This shows the exposition of the story, in that the main character is recovering from alcoholism. She is dealing not only with withdrawl, but with the guilt and the emotions that the drink 'held back' from her.
Theme: The struggle in the story for the main character is alcohol. It's not just the drinking but the emotions that go with it. This woman is trying to catch up with her life, the life that she left behind for the bottle.
Post B
I think since this is the first post, I’ll begin by telling you about the protagonist, Paula Spencer. She is a recovering alcoholic, and a mother. Her children, Jack, Leanne and Nicola are quite different from each other. Nicola is the oldest, has children and is very well off. I think her role in the book is to show extravagance and wealth. Leanne is an alcoholic just like her mother, and is described as “Mad, funny, mad, good, mad, brainy, mad, lovely, and frightening (2). Jack is probably the best that Paula had at the moment, as he is just about 16. On page three, Paula reveals to the reader that she thinks he will break hearts because he has a ruffle-able head, and is a good kid. We hear a bit of dialogue involving Jack, and the reader can make a judgment that he is a relatively nice guy. Paula’s husband died in a previous novel, and we only know so far that she threw him out. Nothing out of the ordinary, in Paula’s mind. She seems bitter, optimistic, and wishful, and to her, the world is relatively small. There is no place to go other than the small market on the side of the road. She isn’t very observant, but we do know that she doesn’t really see things in color. I think that she will undergo a change, however small that will pull her out of her funk sooner or later. Overall, Paula Spencer is teetering on the brink of recovery, but only just.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)