Essay 2: Macbeth, Acts I and II

YouTube video on Act I, scenes 1 - 4:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4rnwHVpLYw 

The political context of Shakespeare's England in 1606, the year Macbeth  was first performed, is important to note. It shows that the establishment of a ruler in England and Scotland was supposed to be a very clear, objective matter-- established by a hereditary line--usually from father to first-born son, king to king, but if there are no males, then the daughter becomes the ruler, the Queen. But what constitutes a royal lineage is often highly contested and vulnerable to different interpretations. If the king is supposed to have absolute power, then the origins of that power are in reality very fragile.

When Henry VIII died, Elizabeth I became Queen, because Henry VIII had no sons. Elizabeth I was the queen during Shakespeare's first 11 years as a playwright and theater entrepreneur, and she supported him. (Elizabeth was a Protestant and she made the Church of England Protestant, but, according to recent research, Shakespeare's father John was a Catholic, and so if  William still believed in Catholicism, he had to hide it. Scotland is the setting of Macbeth, and Scotland was a Catholic country.)  There were Catholics who made the argument that the Catholic Mary Queen of Scots (Scotland) was the rightful ruler of England, because she was the oldest surviving child of Henry VIII's father, Henry VII of England, and these people didn't recognize the validity of Henry VIII's last marriage, since he had converted to the Protestant religion. 

Scotland was separate from England until 1603, 3 years before the play was produced. King James VI of Scotland inherited the throne from his mother, Mary Queen of Scots when he was only a year old in 1567, because Mary had opponents who ran her out of the country for some questionable  actions.  Mary tried to get the protection of her cousin, Elizabeth I, but she was basically imprisoned by Elizabeth and later executed, because Elizabeth feared Mary's claim to the English throne and thought Mary was plotting against her.  (Mary and Elizabeth's big ornate tombs are in the same room--not even 10 feet from each other-- in London's Westminster Abbey.)

James VI of Scotland became James I of England in 1603, because Elizabeth had no children and James, a cousin, was the closest male relative to her, and he united the two countries. Interestingly, although he was baptized Catholic, he kept England Protestant. So James I became the patron of Shakespeare, just as Elizabeth had been, and Shakespeare in writing a political play like Macbeth had to seem to support James's policies. James knew from his own family history that a lot of people disagree about and fight about who should be the ruler and how hereditary lineage is vulnerable to interpretation, and so he developed a doctrine called the Divine Right of Kings— the idea that all other people in a country should have absolute respect and loyalty and obedience to the king, since "God" gives him this power. It's similar to the idea of the pope's infallibility in the Roman Catholic Church: the king can do no wrong. So since James I was Shakespeare's patron, the playwright and theatre entrepreneur had to seem in his play to support the Divine Right of Kings. But Shakespeare had a complex mind that could deal with ambiguities, so we'll see what you think.  

Further elaboration of Act I, scenes 1-4, Apr. 1, 2020 at 10:36 am

A major theme early in the play, which is tied to the theme of loyalty to the king of the nation, is trust. And along with that is the irony that trust is a very fragile thing. Look at what King Duncan says when he's angry about the Thane of Cawdor's betrayal:

There's no art
To find the mind's construction in the face.
He was a gentleman on whom I built
An absolute trust. (Act I, Scene 4, lines 12-16)  
(You don't have to mention the page number in Essay 2 if you cite act, scenes, and lines, but it's 24 in our No Fear Shakespeare edition.

Notice the word "built" near the word "construction." Shakespeare's plays are truly poetry, especially because he uses many tropes in characters' dialogues and soliloquies. (Also, the noble or "upper class" characters speak in iambic pentameter.) Here, trust is like a building that you construct. But what does one construct it out of? Perhaps a leader will see a certain consistency of behavior in his subordinates for a long period of time, but as the king suggests, people tend to look for trustworthiness in someone's facial expressions. 

Think about this issue of trust in the context of all that has been going on in the first four scenes of the play: Duncan trusted MacDonwald and the Thane of Cawdor and found out that he couldn't; Macbeth and Banquo earned his trust by winning the double battle for Duncan, and he puts so much trust in Macbeth that he decides to become the great general's guest the very same evening that Macbeth comes back from the war. Macbeth and Banquo don't know whether they should trust the witches' prophecies about them. And given Macbeth's asides and soliloquies, the audience at this point might wonder whether Duncan should trust Macbeth. (So far, we haven't met Macbeth's wife, but we are about to.)

And in my video, I didn't talk about iambic pentameter. Has anyone looked it up? Take the beautiful line: "To take the mind's construction in the face."

If you pay attention to the weak and strong syllables, you'll see that there's a pattern; first notice: To take--the first syllable is weak or unaccented, and the "TAKE" is more strongly emphasized or accented." The same goes for "the MIND'S," and "con STRUC," and "IN" and "FACE," whereas "the," "con," "ion," and "the" aren't said as forcefully. 

There are five units in iambic pentameter. These units are called iambs (consisting each of one weak and one strong syllable). In Greek the word "pent" means five. Of course, 5 x 2 = 10. 5 iambs, 10 syllables.  The word "meter" means the measurement of weak and strong syllables within a particular unit.

Let me give you contemporary examples of iambic or non-iambic meter:
ba RACK o BA ma (the first 2 syllables are an iamb, and so are the next 2, but the final syllable is extra)
You would never pronounce his name:  BA rack O ba MA, right?

DON ald TRUMP (the first syllable is extra: the iamb is ald TRUMP)

But why does Shakespeare have great musical ability in his poetry? Many poets of his time and even earlier used iambic pentameter. But what Shakespeare does in, say, a 10 line passage, is to have some lines that are perfect iambic pentameter, and other lines where he has one metrical substitution in each line. What is a metrical substitution? It permits variety instead of a singsong meter that's always the same. Instead of weak/strong in the first 2 syllables or the last 2 syllables, you might have strong weak or strong strong or weak weak, or you might have a line that is missing the first syllable (9 syllables instead of 10) or adds an extra weak syllable at the end (11 syllables).


MONDAY, APRIL 6: MACBETH, ACT I, Scenes 5-7

Scene 5- Notice, in the letter to Lady Macbeth that she reads at the beginning of the scene, how Macbeth associates his success with HER success: "my dearest partner of greatness" and "what greatness is promised thee"--being a queen (p. 30- I, 5, 1-13). Does it perhaps signify that she has, in the past, already made it clear to him that she is deeply invested in his power and status and he is acknowledging that?  Does the letter also imply that Macbeth himself was very ambitious (at least unconsciously) even before the witches spoke to him? Or could Lady Macbeth have been the driving force behind her husband's ambition all along? In a patriarchal society like Renaissance Scotland (or England), very few women would have any opportunity to gain power and status on their own, so if Lady Macbeth is truly ambitious on behalf of her husband, a feminist analysis--see topic 1 for essay 2-- could explain it.

Lady Macbeth's reaction to the letter is tremendously revealing. In essay 2, I could imagine quite a few of you quoting the whole soliloquy on p. 28 (lines 14-28) or a lot of it as a block quote and then analyzing what it reveals about her psychological makeup. She's only thrilled for exactly one sentence, and then she starts doubting her husband's ability "to catch the nearest way" of becoming king because, although she knows he has SOME ambition, he's TOO NICE! So what does she mean by "the nearest way"? I think you know. It's not nice. She talks about morality and how it stands in the way of ambition. You see, the issue of trust comes in again: she trusts him as a faithful husband, but she doesn't trust his ability to do what she considers the best thing because of his character traits. She believes that she needs to use her persuasive powers, and she uses exactly the same trope of pouring something into a person's ear that is used in Hamlet about five years earlier to describe how Hamlet's uncle Claudius killed Hamlet's father the king by pouring poison into his ear.  Lady M doesn't consider it poison but medicine, but the play's audience might well consider it poison: "Hie thee hither,/ That I might pour my spirits in thine ear/ And chastise with the valor of my tongue/ All that impedes thee from the golden round...."  "Spirits" can mean liquor (alcohol) or intoxication and can also mean spirited behavior. Also notice the words "chastise" and "valor" (bravery). Think about what techniques of persuasion Lady M wants to use on her husband.

Next, Lady M is surprised (and maybe happy) to find that the king is coming to visit, which we already know from the previous scene, but are you surprised that she then speaks of "the fatal entrance of Duncan"? Was it obvious already what she was up to? She pretends to be annoyed at the short notice, but is she really annoyed or faking it? 

But look at the next soliloquy (after the servant announcing the visit has left and before her husband returns) from lines 39 to 55 of the scene; even she might have a little trouble from her conscience, so she is telling herself not only to be tough and to ignore ordinary morality for the sake of her ambition but also that she can't "be" a woman any more: "unsex me here.... / Come to my woman's breasts,/ And take my milk for gall...." If you are doing a feminist analysis of the play, you definitely need to quote some of this passage and look at how one or two critics deal with what seems to be the stereotyping of female AND male behavior. Even if you're not doing feminist analysis in the paper, this passage would also connect with topics 2 and 4 and maybe even 3.  It's interesting that in this one scene, we find 2 of the most famous and remarkable soliloquies in the play.

The dialogue between M and Lady M (p. 34, lines 55-76)  is brief, and there's definitely some sweet-talking, but can you identify the sentence in which she forcefully tells him what she thinks has to happen? And does he agree or does he delay the conversation? And why? (Obviously, you're not necessarily going to answer all my questions in the comments section of this blog post, but always try to find an answer on your own.)

Scene 6-  This scene has beautiful courtly language, but we don't need to discuss it, beyond saying that everybody's incredibly polite to one another, especially Lady M, who wants the king to think that she is tremendously loyal to him and is entirely in his service and loves serving him. Is she a good actress in terms of gaining his trust?

Scene 7- I think we've seen so far that Shakespeare in this play is already a master of psychology.  Macbeth's extremely poetic soliloquy shows that, even before his wife has a chance to pour her persuasive words into his ear, he's already thinking about how to use the opportunity that Duncan has inadvertently given him to "replace" him as King because he says it needs to be done quickly, but, perhaps more importantly, the speech also shows that his wife was right in her first soliloquy: he does have an active conscience, and he rehearses all the reasons that the murder would be morally wrong and would come back to haunt him. 

Note that the word "trust" is present; it is becoming a motif (recurring trope or image) in the play, not only a major theme. He knows Duncan trusts him and has "double" reason to do so. And this is not only about the Divine Right of Kings and the sanctity of hereditary succession to the throne because M talks about what a kind, moral, benevolent, mild guy Duncan is--he's not a cruel despot. The last sentence of the soliloquy shows that M, like his wife 2 soliloquies ago, is not sure he can pull it off; his ambition may not be strong enough. 

In the second part of this scene, look very carefully at the dialogue between M and Lady M.: 

• How does he carry his indecision from the soliloquy right before into his first major statement to his wife? 
• What techniques does she use to convince him to go against his sense of morality? 
• Does her rhetoric-- her way of speaking, tropes, and images--have any thing to do with the ideas about gender/sex that she included in her second soliloquy? 
• What are the key words in her persuasive speeches in this dialogue? 
• What effect do her arguments have on M by the end of the scene? And why?

In the comments section of this post, various students agreed that Lady Macbeth uses gender stereotypes to persuade Macbeth to kill Duncan and realize his ambition and that she seems to be successful.


**********

YouTube video on Act II:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_NhyfNEmAc

Please click on the link above and watch this before class on Monday, April 20 or at the beginning of class.

Essay 1: Organization

OPTIONAL REVISION OF ESSAY 1


As a whole, the class did very well on Essay 1, and 4 students already accomplished successful revisions over the break.  For those who didn't do as well as they had hoped, here are some trends; if you see that this applies to your essay, you can thoroughly correct the problem:

In category 1 of the grading rubric,

• some students really needed for their topic sentences (the first sentence in each body paragraph) to have something to do with comparison/contrast, and NOT to tell part of the story being covered.
• in some cases, in body paragraphs, students spent too much time summarizing the plot and not enough time talking about the psychological aspects of the characters or, if relevant, the political aspects of the stories.
• some students did not cover the narrative mode and 2 other literary techniques
• some students did very general summaries of comparison/contrast in the conclusion rather than the key points that made the stories similar or different.

In category 2 of the rubric,

• Some students did not follow any of the outlines closely enough. One number in the outline =one paragraph
• In some cases, transitions between the stories weren't clear

In category 3 of the rubric,

• For students who had low grades in category 3, I strongly recommend getting Grammarly online, but in any case, focus on careful proofreading of anything you add to the paper and any paragraph I didn't mark for grammar.
• In some cases, I used . . . .   a lot, indicating word waste, so notice these parts and be sure to eliminate the unnecessary words in the revision document.
• In some cases, students repeated the same word over and over within a paragraph. Use brainstorming for synonyms, an online thesaurus, and pronoun substitutes.

OUTLINING, Mon. March 30, 2020

In the following outlines, each number stands for a particular paragraph in the essay.  You should mention the 3 or 4 literary terms wherever you think they fit naturally, except that climax and/or resolution go into particular paragraphs in the outline below. Don't define the literary techniques when you use them, and don't go into a lot of detail. Everyone should mention the kind of narrator used-- for example, if it's a first person narrator in Gay's story, when you are quoting her, you can introduce the quote by saying something like: The first-person narrator, who is also the protagonist, is not afraid of her husband actually behaving unfaithfully:    "  ________________     " (Gay).  Some of the best literary terms to use for this essay, aside from narrator and resolution and/or climax are: flashback, twist, interior monologue, irony, symbol, image. Remember: you only need 3 literary terms.  Using many of them does not necessarily improve the quality of the essay, which is mostly focused on interpretation of the characters and themes.

Outline A (character analysis) -- for "Open Marriage" by Gay and "The Little Green Monster" by Murakami.

1. Introduction--state the name of the two authors and the two stories and indicate the general subject matter (not thesis or main idea) of your comparison/contrast--for example, analysis of the 2 protagonists

2. - 3. Gay-- wife's problem with husband  

4.. - 5. Similarity and/or difference in topic sentence: "Little Green Monster" protagonist facing spousal neglect and fear of monster 

6. Gay-- wife's strategy for dealing with husband

 7. Similarity and/or difference: Murakami's protagonist's dealing with monster and symbolism of monster in relation to husband

8.  Significance/meaning of climax and/or resolution of Gay's story 

9.  Similarity and/or difference (in topic sentence): In the climax and/or resolution (your decision), Murakami's protagonist conquers her fear and finds control.

10. Conclusion--summary of most important comparisons and contrasts and (optional) questions for further interpretation

Outline A (character analysis) s: “Now We Will Be Happy”by Amina Gautier & “The Little Green Monster”by Haruki Murakami    (A lot of you will be doing other combinations of stories--this is just an example so that you can see how a particular structure works.)

1. Introduction--state the name of the two authors and the two stories and indicate the general subject matter (not thesis or main idea) of your comparison/contrast--for example, analysis of the 2 protagonists

2. Pedro's abuse of Rosa

3. Similarity and/or difference in topic sentence: "Little Green Monster" protagonist facing spousal neglect. 

4. Rosa's Puerto Rican background's influence on her attitude to Pedro's abuse

 5. Similarity and/or difference: Murakami's protagonist's Japanese background's influence on her attitude to her husband's neglect

6. Rosa's strategies to take control of her life

7.  Similarity and/or difference in topic sentence: Murakami's protagonist's strategies to take control of her life

8.  In the climax and/or resolution (your decision, Rosa takes or doesn't take control of her life 

9.  Similarity and/or difference (in topic sentence): In the climax and/or resolution (your decision), Murakami's protagonist conquers her fear and finds control.

10. Conclusion--summary of most important comparisons and contrasts and (optional) questions for further interpretation

Outline B (character analysis)  in process (same content, different structure):

1. Introduction--state the name of the two authors and the two stories and indicate the general subject matter (not thesis or main idea) of your comparison/contrast--for example, analysis of the 2 protagonists
2.  Pedro's abuse of Rosa
3. Rosa's Puerto Rican background's influence on her attitude to Pedro's abuse
4. Rosa's strategies to take control of her life
5. In the climax and/or resolution (your decision), Rosa takes control or doesn't take control of her life
6.  Transition to Murakami (similarity/difference): "Little Green Monster" protagonist facing spousal neglect. 
7.  (reference to Rosa in topic sentence) Murakami's protagonist's Japanese background's influence on her attitude to her husband's neglect
8.  (reference to Rosa in topic sentence) Murakami's protagonist's strategies to take control of her life
9. (reference to Rosa in topic sentence) In  climax and/or resolution (your decision),  Murakami's
protagonist conquers her fear and finds control
10. conclusion--summary of most important comparisons and contrasts and (optional) questions for further interpretation



You shouldn't talk about MANY comparisons and contrasts in the essay; you should talk about 3 to 5 and then really support them with evidence.

FOR LOW STAKES WRITING, BODY PARAGRAPH DUE on Mon. Mar. 30, 2020

Mon. 3/30 assignment- (submit by email by 10:30 am- HOMEWORK: LOW STAKES WRITING:  ONE BODY PARAGRAPH OF ESSAY 1.

It doesn't matter which body paragraph you do; just don't do the introduction or the conclusion.

We don't yet have a set of outlines to choose from for Essay 1, but in this sample body paragraph, you can do 1 of the following:

a) state and elaborate on a central point about 1 of the 2 stories that the paper is about (which you will in a latter paragraph compare or contrast with a central point about the other)

b) state and elaborate on a central point about BOTH stories at the same time. (This is more difficult. I don't recommend it, because it's more suitable for the conclusion)

Here are choices for a correct paragraph structure which are partly from the Writing and Literature Textbook, and remember that I Q A means Introduce, Quote, Analyze:

The average body paragraph should be 7 to 10 sentences, including quotations from your sources. 

Body paragraph structure: 

a.  Begin with a topic sentence—either the main point of the paragraph (or the question to be answered in the paragraph).  (The next sentence might further develop ideas in the first. )

b. Introduce (the I in I Q A) a quote

c. Present the quote (the Q in I Q A) itself.

d. Analyze (the A of I Q A) the quote in terms of proving the topic sentence.  

     In some body paragraphs, the writer performs the I Q A pattern twice or even 3 times.

In other body paragraphs, there is some paraphrase and analysis and then an I Q A pattern—or the other way around. ​

     When writing body paragraphs, make sure that you develop your ideas logically and avoid big generalizations that you can’t support. Do not include information that is unrelated to your essay’s main point (thesis). Also, avoid repeating ideas. “As I said before” is a bad thing to say!

ANONYMOUS STUDENTS' EXAMPLES OF A BODY PARAGRAPH, Mon. Mar. 30, 2020

Frequently, one can discern and experience the reality of social inequality in the workforce, and this is especially more notorious for immigrants. In the story Now We Will Be Happy, the author, Amina Gautier, actively points out the social inequality that Yauba as an immigrant faces in his job. Gautier decides to expose and address this element of social inequality by proffering us an insight into Yauba's life in his job. Gautier writes, "Taking no notice of Yauba, these international girls... [W]ho had come here for school, lifted fingers and pointed to what they wanted, held their plates up to the gloved hands that dished their helpings." These international girls spend no attention in Yauba as an individual doing a job, but more likely regard him as a tool; as part of an outer experience of which they do not intend nor care to learn or understand. Men are all created equal, but the truth is that, socially, they don't remain equal. As Gautier rightly notes, ''Thanks to the Jones Act, no Puerto Rican is an immigrant, a fact Jim always pretends to know", Gautier continues, ''He hates to pay him his due, give him his right, treat him like the citizen he is." The fact is that Jim sees Yauba as a second class citizen, one that he can exploit. 

TF comment:  If this is the first or second body paragraph, then the first time the writer quotes Gautier, after the last ", they should use a parenthetic citation: (Gautier).  The period is after the 
(  ) citation. No page number is needed because it's from my syllabus, not a real book or print magazine or PDF of a magazine with pages. The first time you quote each story, use ( ) citation, not after that.

The topic sentence (first sentence) is very effective (if the overall thesis involves "social inequality," because it does INTERPRETATION of the story; it does NOT tell what happened. This is very important, because you should assume the reader knows basically what happens in the stories, and every topic sentence should deal with issues in the prompt (my specific instructions for writing the essay in the course schedule of the syllabus). Actually, the first 2 sentences act as the topic sentence, because the paragraph is supporting the point in the first sentence by talking about Gautier's story AND NOT ABOUT THE OTHER ONE.  This point will be covered for the other story and the comparison/contrast will be made in A DIFFERENT paragraph.
Another really good thing about this paragraph is that there are 2 I Q As: each of the 2 quotes is introduced in the writer's own words, and then comes each "     " and finally, the writer analyzes the quote to prove the point in the topic sentence. And these quotes are very useful in proving the point. 

So what can be improved about this paragraph?   There are only 2 things: 1) The sentence, "Men are all created... remain equal," should be cut, because the previous sentence of interpretation already proves the point, and it's a large generalization that is already covered enough in the opening sentence of the paragraph.  2) Instead of Gautier writes as the introduction for the first quote, this is an opportunity to say something like: "Gautier's third-person subjective narrator represents Yauba's interior monologue: "

The semi-colon after the word "tool" is incorrect; there should be either a dash or a comma. When I grade your papers, if there are substantial grammar errors, I will only be identifying these errors in 3 paragraphs where they are most numerous or evident, and it should be assumed that the student should look for similar errors in other paragraphs while revising and while doing online work with tutors at the Writing Center. In the case of this student's work, the one little error is insignificant, and I wouldn't comment on grammar in that particular paragraph.

Both women characters share a similarity in their actions. Through the experiences both women had in both stories it showed their true character & it’s result in their actions. In “The Green Little Monster” the women’s actions in her story led her from being a scared women approaching her situation frightened and hopeless but later grew courage to stand up to the creature and kill it with negative thoughts she began to grow. Later realizing it helped dominate the creature to its death. Beginning the story we see the women scared and frightened as the creature creeping out of the ground of her oak tree outside walking to the front of her door as she thought “I breathed as quietly as I could, pretending not to be there, hoping the thing would give up and go away.” The women suffering on the inside feeling terrified was hoping for the creature to not believe she was present in her home. This shows the beginning of her emotions in the start of the story that later leads to her actions. Later coming to realize that the creatures weak spot was through her negative thoughts of the creature in which affected him listening to those thoughts and making him weak. We see her thinking “You are an ugly little monster! The purple of the scales grew deeper, and the thing's eyes began to bulge as if they were sucking in all the hatred I was sending them. They protruded from the creature's face like ripe green figs, and tears like red juice ran down from them, splattering on the floor. I wasn't afraid of the monster anymore.” Ending the story off the women builds courage and grows strongly to go against the emotions she had in the beginning towards the creature to finally beat him to his death. Her emotions didn’t get to her anymore but rather help her against the creature leading her to take action against who she first thought was terrifying and frightening to becoming the hero of her story through those actions.  

TF comment:  My comment on (   ) citation about the previous student's paragraph applies to this one as well.  Notice that the previous paragraph puts the action in the PRESENT tense, while this one puts it in the PAST tense but then sometimes switches to the present.  Everyone should PUT THE ACTION CONSISTENTLY IN THE PRESENT TENSE for all stories.

This paragraph contains two fragments that have the same basic problem:
Later realizing it helped dominate the creature to its death.
should read: The protagonist later realizes that it helps dominate the creature to its death.
Later coming to realize that the creatures weak spot was through her negative thoughts of the creature in which affected him listening to those thoughts and making him weak. should read: SHE LATER COMES to realize.. weak.  
You can't use a gerund (an -ing word to begin a sentence, unless it's merely the beginning of a dependent clause--look that up in the Purdue OWL!--followed by an independent clause. Everyone should watch out for fragments.

I think that the writer has very strong insight into Murakami's protagonist's change from timidity to courage, and both quotations support this main point of the paragraph. The I Q A is solid. The first two sentences can be combined into one topic sentence:Both women characters share a similarity in their actions. Through the experiences both women had in both stories it showed their true character & it’s result in their actions. 
Both women characters share a similarity in their actions, because their experience showed their true character and how their actions produced a result. 

The last 2 sentences have effective ideas but can be stated more concisely, since there is some repetition of ideas:
Ending the story off the women builds courage and grows strongly to go against the emotions she had in the beginning towards the creature to finally beat him to his death. Her emotions didn’t get to her anymore but rather help her against the creature leading her to take action against who she first thought was terrifying and frightening to becoming the hero of her story through those actions.  
At the end of Murakami's story, the woman builds courage and overcomes her fear towards the creature to finally beat him to death. Her emotions didn’t get to her anymore but rather help her against the creature, leading her to become the hero of her story through those actions.  



DEVELOPING A THESIS:

The thesis (main point, presentable in a sentence or 2) does not contain all 3-5 elements of comparison/contrast; that would be much too long! The thesis contains the most important or the broadest (most encompassing) element of comparison or contrast or both.

Here is Giselle's example, which I've just tweaked a little, of a tentative thesis:
In both Gay and Murakami's stories, the female protagonists seem to be in a complicated relationship, yet the society can be what is causing the complication, and their different personalities and emotions are seen in how they handle the situation.

Analysis:  This is very close to a fully realized and effective thesis, because Giselle finds the common ground: the two different societies are held responsible for the protagonists' problems. But equally importantly, she is thinking about how the characters RESPOND to their difficulties.

Here is a revision that might make this a fully realized thesis by creating even greater specificity by using the language of feminist analysis that you can find in our Writing and Literature Textbook, p. 2:

In both Gay and Murakami's stories the female protagonists' problems in relationships with their husbands are caused by the patriarchal (male-dominant) societies in which they live, and the characters respond to their lack of social power in different ways, with differing results.

Of course, the thesis doesn't say HOW the responses and results are different and why, but that would make the thesis too long, so the writer can elaborate on this in the essay itself.


BRAINSTORMING FOR COMPARISON/CONTRAST

MOORE, MARIA 2032: FUTURE SHOCK AND  GAUTIER, NOW WE WILL BE HAPPY. (Samuel)

• Characters from both stories are from a Hispanic background.   [TF comment: this is good but you need to go further and say whether the Hispanic background is portrayed in a similar or different way and how that has an impact on a theme of the story--for example, social inequality.
• There's an important element very present in both stories: Social inequity. TF: yes--and you can further indicate whether it's similar or different inequality if that's important to your overall argument.
• Yauba's character is similar to Maria's. They are both very proud of where they come from, and how it has shaped them.  TF: Yes, and you might say how this influences the action of the story
• Both characters give importance to their families (Maria's dad, Yauba's aunt, Rosa's parents). TF: This could be important, if it fits one of  the other main points, but if it doesn't, you might choose to leave it out of the actual paper.

Frances  

“Now We Will Be Happy" by Gautier and Gay’s “Open Marriage”: commonalities:  

  Rosa and Gay's narrator's husband: both in unhappy marriages and desire to be true to oneself.     

TF: Yes, this can be the basis for your overall analysis.

Also: a drive to change their destiny.  

TF: Right, and you'll relate this to the climax in each.

Common trope of food (tostones/yogurt)
         TF: This is a very interesting point and even if it isn't "major," you need to put it in where it fits.

both stories:   climax with an unknown resolution.  

difference:

first person (Gay) vs. 3rd person (Gautier)
TF:  Third person __________. Please be specific. I encourage you all to consider using narrative technique as part of your analysis (and as 1 of your 3 lit. terms) and it can either be a separate paragraph or woven into the introduction or some body paragraph where it's relevant.

Giselle:

Gay "Open Marriage" and Murakami "The Little Green Monster".

3 ELEMENTS about the characters

-  Is that both female leads are wives and are in a complicated relationship.

-  both seem independent

-  the difference is that wife by Gay, is more dominant, confident and strong and the other wife by Murakami is timid, scared, doesn't seem strong but at the end becomes strong.
TF:  These are excellent points-- you will want to relate them to the climax and resolution, non-resolution

 2 ELEMENTS about literary techniques

- The symbolism of the tree and the yogurt.   TF: yes-- symbolism is important, and show how it conveys theme

- the irony of when the wife by Gay was saying she allows husband to be involved with other people. Can also bring modern society into this? TF-  Yes, irony is connected to modern society here, and you want to find an irony in the other story.

Here is the link for my YouTube video on Plagiarism, MLA Documentation, IQA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChJ4ncuLd2c 

While you're listening to this video, have the Writing and Literature Textbook at hand.

One thing I didn't discuss in this 20 minute video is "patchwriting," which isn't exactly plagiarism and isn't penalized as strongly but does need to be eliminated before someone can get a grade. Patchwriting is changing the grammar and structure of someone else's sentence so that you are not using exactly the same words and not giving credit to them. For example, if a text says, "This world is changing" while a student writes, "The world changes," that's patchwriting. We should all avoid it instead, quote directly and put "       " around the quotation, and follow it with a parenthetical citation (also called in-text citation).

Essay 1- Gautier (for Mar. 23 discussion)

This is what the group on Gautier's story, "Now We Will Be Happy" wrote:

C. Amina Gautier, "Now We Will Be Happy": What kind of narrator is there in the story? Through this method of narration, what are we able to learn (or not learn) that is important about Rosa, Pedro, and Yauba? What is the significance of the story's title?

1. Narrator - Third Person point of view
2. Rosa - Is in an physically and mentally abusive relationship with Pedro. Feels very disconnected from her Hispanic heritage.
    Pedro - Husband of Rosa, very dominant in their relationship. Uses his knowledge of their heritage to condescend to Rosa.
    Yauba - The other "Lover" of Rosa, more respectful than Pedro. Is often compared to Pedro in a positive way. Of Puerto Rican descent and used to serve the privileged.
3. The title is significant by coming together and forgetting all issues that is happening in each person's life. The title is a statement of letting go and allowing yourself to be happy. This can also be seen as Ironic because even though they had a moment of peace at the end of the day they still have to go back to their lives and face their problems again.

For discussion on Mar. 23, 2020:

TF:  You've given us a strong sense of the psychological dynamics involving Rosa, Pedro, and Yauba. I think that you've captured the essence of the story's title. And I would elaborate on what you're saying but adding that "now" can mean 2 things: "now but not necessarily later," and "from now on" (like "happily ever after").

Yes, it's a Hispanic heritage, but it's specifically Puerto Rican, and all of the major characters (Rosa, Pedro, Yauba) and the minor characters (Rosa's parents) share this particular heritage. Pay careful attention to what Yauba says to himself when the third person narrator presents Yauba's interior monologue near the bottom of the seventh paragraph of the story: "Thanks to the Jones Act, no Puerto Rican is an immigrant, a fact Jim always pretends not to know. He hates to pay him his due, give him his rights, treat him like the citizen he is." Think about the ironic history of Puerto Rico and the U.S., which "won" the island in the Spanish America War as a "colony," which then became a territory, making Puerto Ricans who live on the island and those who live in the mainland U.S. citizens, but as we know from the recent botching of disaster relief after Hurricane Maria in September 2017, Puerto Rico doesn't get the privileges of the mainland. (In fact, there's been a lot of debate on the island for decades about whether or not their people want it to become a state rather than a territory, and some want complete independence from the U.S.)

Note: If a student cannot attend during the class hours but give comments BEFORE the class, I will often post their comments in the body of a blog post, but once class starts, everyone will use the comments section.

You say that the story has a third-person narrator. But what kind of third-person narrator is it? Limited? Subjective? Omniscient? Or even free/indirect?  (Look at the glossary in the Writing and Literature Textbook.) An omniscient narrator can give us interior monologues for ALL major characters:  Is the narrator able to get into the minds of Yauba, Rosa, and Pedro with interior monologues? Or do you disagree with the idea that Pedro is a major character? If you think he IS a major character, does the narrator represent what's going on in his thoughts?

 Frances C.: The narrator gives a character’s thoughts and emotions as though they were reporting inner monologues as herself/himself within a text that otherwise uses a general third-person narrator (Rosa and Yauba only).  Therefore the narration is in the 3rd person free/indirect.
 Pedro is not a major character, he is a contributing factor (Foil character) towards the Rosa and Yauba plot. If The narrator does not depict what is occuring inside Pedro’s thoughts, he is subjectively depicted through Rosa’s point of view… biased. 

TF: OK, but if Pedro is NOT a major character, then is the story third person omniscient, because ALL major characters are covered by inner monologues that seem to come from them? I'm really asking this question; it's not rhetorical, because I'm not sure what a scholar in narrative theory--which is not my specialty--would say. So I think students can make decent arguments on both sides: third person omniscient or third person free/indirect.

TF:  In this story, are there 3 plots: Rosa's (with Pedro and her parents) and Yauba's (in his job) separately and Rosa and Yauba's together? Or is there a main plot (Rosa/Yauba) with 2 less important sub-plots?

TF:  Are there any flashbacks that help us understand some of the characters' circumstances?

Frances: Yes. Rosa’s past and present is filled with emotional neglect and dissonance from her parents, more so with Rosa’s mother rather than her father.   During Rosa’s childhood, her parents purposely deprived her of a wide range of Puerto Rican cultural immersion stemming from music, to language as well as culinary techniques.

Yauba’s flashback enables us to understand his appreciation of simple and humble women, living quarters and the love of cooking.  

TF:  Does dialogue add to what we learn about the conflicts in the story from the interior monologues?

Frances: Yes, it adds subliminal layers to the conflicts.

Are the last few paragraphs of the story a climax or a resolution or both a climax and a resolution?

Frances C.:  The idea of “now” signifies  the climax of Rosa and Yauba’s discretely revealing their true love towards each other from here on which occurred  at the end of the story. Climax is reached during the last few paragraphs of the story, yet a resolution has yet to come.  Rosa and Yauba are in a state of temporary elation come the end of the story.

SUMMARY OF 3/23/20 DISCUSSION

The discussion was too complex to provide a summary that does full justice to it, so I recommend that you read the actual comments and replies in the comments section, and this may help you focus your own interpretation of the story if you choose to write about it in Essay 1. But what I can do is provide some general areas in which class members had various views:

1. Some believe that there is a third-person subjective narrator because we get into the minds of two major characters, Rosa and Yauba, but not Pedro. A small number, perhaps only one person, maintain that all the characters are important, and therefore, we have a third-person omniscient narrator. Some consider this a third-person limited narrator because they think that we can only get into the mind of Rosa, not Yauba; I cautioned these interpreters to be careful about asserting that there is no interior monologue for Yauba. Finally, some consider the narrator to be free/indirect, and this pertains to  Rosa and Yauba seeming to directly relay their thoughts to the readers, but the issue arose as to whether this was really happening. (Also, see my uncertain reply to Frances about 30 lines above this.)
Remember that, when you write your paper, the identification of the narrator and the support for this identification is probably going to take up 1-3 sentences for each story; it's not going to be a large part of the paper. We just want to know the impact that a narrative point of view has on the development of this story's theme in relation to how point of view affects the other story.

2.  Some contributors to the discussion say that there were 3 equal plots, because these plots were interdependent and interlocking, but some claim that the Rosa/Yauba plot is the main focus and that the other 2 were subplots.
In writing the paper, this will not necessarily come up, but if you can  relate it to the overall theme, you might discuss it, if there's a link with the other story you're comparing/contrasting it to.

3. There is general agreement that flashbacks are important to give background information about Rosa's conflict with Pedro, her relationship with her parents that influences her present circumstances, her inner conflict, her relationship with Yauba (to a lesser extent, since a lot of that happens in the narrative present of the story), and Yauba's conflict at his job.
Mentioning flashbacks can come up naturally (not in a forced way) in the essay when you are discussing a conflict in the story that is similar or different from a conflict in another story.

4. There is also agreement that dialogue is useful, especially because it underlines the positive relationship between Rosa and Yauba and also emphasizes points that come from the interior monologues.
Mentioning dialogue can come up naturally (not in a forced way) in the essay when you are discussing a conflict in the story that is similar or different from a conflict in another story.

5. Most contributors believe that the story's climax is at the end with the tub scene, where the love of Rosa and Yauba is fully confirmed and celebrated. Some consider Rosa and Yauba to have reached a full resolution embodied in their expression of commitment to each other, indicating that the resolution of the story can be in characters' minds rather than in some "final" action; some read the story's ending as a partial resolution, since we don't know if Rosa will leave Pedro, and some see this uncertainty or suspense as evidence that there is no resolution.
Similarities or differences in climax and or resolution between this and another story can be important to your essay.

  

Essay 1- Gay. Moore, Murakami

Gay, "Open Marriage"

First person narrator (opening sentences: "We" "he" "I")
large conflict: open marriage proposed by "happy" husband
small conflict: expiration of yogurt
reason for persistence of small conflict: avoidance (irony)

No immediate attempt on the narrator's part to participate in the conflict.   Why?
Statement: "You're welcome to try....": she claims that she is being literal/truthful.

But MAYBE she is trying to submerge her negative feelings about this. And she is tarnishing his character only because she is upset.
OR she really believes he will do nothing & it's just talk. 

Perhaps she sees the advantage of knowing his thoughts and not being cheated on.

He is surprised because he figures that she is very energetic, assertive, and sexual.


GROUP WORK, Mar. 9, 2020: Use the glossary of literary terms in the Textbook for this task.

A. Terry Moore, "Maria 2032":  What kind of narrator is there in the story? Through this method of narration, what are we able to learn (or not learn) that is important about the 2 main characters? What are the political implications of the story in relation to our current political reality in the U.S.? On the other hand, how is this also a story about family?

B. Haruki Murakami, "The Little Green Monster": What kind of narrator is there in the story? Through this method of narration, what are we able to learn (or not learn) that is important about the woman and the monster? For this text to make sense, do we need to see it as symbolic and do a psychological analysis of the woman's desires and fears? If so, what are her fears and desires and how are they reflected in her thoughts/"actions" toward the monster?

C. Amina Gautier, "Now We Will Be Happy": What kind of narrator is there in the story? Through this method of narration, what are we able to learn (or not learn) that is important about Rosa, Pedro, and Yauba? What is the significance of the story's title?




Solution Terry Moore- Future Shock-Maria 2032

1. Narrator: Third person omniscient
2. Characters contrast  with each other: Max is conservative, Maria is more liberal.  Maria is introvert; Max is outspoken, extrovert. Max was popular had a lot of attention. Social classes: Max is upper class; Maria is from a middle-lower class background. Maria is Latina, Max is white.
3.  There is an allusion to Donald Trump; just like Trump he was really outspoken against public office but he still decides to run for public office (Irony).
4. Parents played an important role on both characters. Maria's parents wanted her to pursuit a career in the High-Tech industry (Engineer). Max inherited money from his parents (allusion to Donald Trump). Maria's dad were supportive of her choice; however, "her dad knew she would face many cold, dark times in the days ahead."

Murakami, Haruki - "The Little Green Monster."
1. Narrator - First Person
2. What are we learning that is important between the woman and the monster - The unrequited love between the monster and the woman - the monster came to the woman because it wanted love and the woman denied the monster, judging it by its cover as she believed the monster came to harm her.
3. Do we need to see it as symbolic and do a psychological analysis of the woman's fears and desires? -  The woman gave love towards the oak tree, as the monster can read minds and she talked with the oak tree in her head since she was a child. The woman herself seems to desire control and fears not having it, as when she believed the monster was coming to harm her, she ran away and hid. Even when she discovered the monster wasn't coming to harm her and actively tried to hurt it, by imagining torture and calling it ugly until it disappeared, and didn't even give the monster the ability to say its last words, it indicates that the monster symbolizes the husband and is a scapegoat for him since she must be afraid to strike back at him (the husband).



Notes on Haruki Murakami, "Little Green Monster" by TJ

Magical Realism - Realistic setting with supernatural/magical elements, genre originated in South America; can also be Surrealism

First person narrative

Unrequited love between the woman and the monster; the monster comes to the woman in search of love and the woman does not reciprocate, instead choosing to run away as she fears the monster has come to harm her.

Pyschological Criticism - what someone wants below the surface; not like "I want ice cream" but something deeper like feelings and more significant desires

Analysis - The woman desires control and fears not having it. She fears loneliness and lack of purpose as her husband is gone for work and she has nothing to do in the home. She and her husband are not close as he is usually working, leaving her alone for the day leading her to build a bond with the oak tree. She planted the oak tree as a child, revealing that she had never left her parents house and instead her husband moved in; her parents have either left or passed away leaving just the wife and husband. She could've forced the husband to move into her house as a way of seeking control.

She initially flees from the monster believing it to harm it, but when she realizes that it doesn't mean her any harm, she violently retaliates against it in her mind. She does this because the monster symbolizes something greater;

• The monster itself can symbolize the husband, entering her home and trying to love her when she doesn't love him back, and tries to strike back to regain control of her life. This connects with traditional Japanese family culture as the man is typically considered the head of the household, so she may feel powerless against him and lashes out at the monster to substitute for the fact that she can't or doesn't want to lash out at the husband
• The monster can symbolize her, she sees herself as unworthy and unloved and she wants to 'kill' this part of herself that she doesn't like. she tries to love her husband but is rejected by the husband who is never home for her. Due to older Japanese societal norms, she is blaming herself for being unloveable instead of looking towards the husband for why he doesn't love her.
• it can represent the outside world as she is very bored and lonely, cooped up in the home. She is mad and fears the outside world as she has no greater purpose and without her husband she has little meaning.

On some level, she is going crazy as she doesn't understand that the monster isn't real and actively tries to kill it. She is also 'crazy' as she chooses to stay cooped up inside the home staring at the same garden she's stayed at for years rather than going outside and doing something, it seems like she has no personality of her own.

The story is told entirely through an inner monologue, she doesn't utter a single world during the story, revealing that the monster is a part of her subconscious. The monster could be a paranoia-based manifestation of her inner fears and can read her mind as her fears are still a part of her.

She could be roleplaying as the husband against the manifestation of her fears to help regain some feeling of control or power when she is usually helpless.