My Reaction to The Caretaker

I am on the whole indifferent to this play, on the one hand I can see why it would be dismissed as boring and pointless, but on the other hand I feel obliged to make an effort to recognize its value, simply because it has received such positive reviews. The Caretaker probably does deserve critical acclaim and although Harold Pinter is certainly a writer that deserves to receive the recognition he has gotten, it is not as easy to appreciate his work if its context is not understood which in this case reflects England’s situation almost 20 years after WWII. People are still living rather desolate lives and it was a time when England was just getting back on its feet. The setting justifies many of the things that stand out in the play, such as Davies’s racism, and his superior attitude. The plot may seem pointless because nothing of too much significance happens, but the three characters are uniquely developed. Overall, it is well written, the stage directions are specific but borderline frustrating, and despite being under the genre of the Theater of the Absurd, its writing style is very naturalistic, unlike the other absurdist plays we’ve read such as The Bold Soprano, and Waiting For Godot (in HL). It is perhaps this element of his writing that makes it even more morbid- because it does reflect an aspect of reality. The more you read, especially with regard to Davies character, the more you question whether what he is saying is true or just made up. Mick says to him, “you can’t take anything you say at face value.” They all have plans that aren’t realized, and that probably never will be. Mick plans to fix up the house, Aston wants to build a shed in the back yard and Davies plans on going down to Sidcup to get his papers, “when the weather clears up”. This is something I think we can all identify with, making plans we don’t follow through with. I think one of the only things I personally enjoyed about this play is Davies’s manner of speaking- for some reason I was amused by it.

IOP - Minerva Mirabeel; In the Time of the Butterflies

1. Write a brief descriptive paragraph that summarizes your IOP. Be sure to include the topic, your thesis, and the hook and any visual aids you used.

My IOP was about one of the main characters in Julia Alvarez's novel, In the Time of the Butterflies, Minerva Mirabel. I chose this novel because it is my favorite book that we've read in IB so far, and I admire it for various reasons, from the writing style, to the plot, to the fact that it is based on a true story. I chose to explore the characterization of Minerva because she represents one of the most prominent themes in the novel, feminism, and she also represents the figure of a heroine, who along with her sisters dies for the freedom of her country. My argument was that she most memorable character due to her personality and character traits. I looked into the fact that as readers, we can see her from multiple angles, her personal vulnerability vs. her external bravado. I also examined Minerva's relationships with her sisters. My presentation took the form of a power point, and at the end it concluded with a short film which depicts a scene from the book when Minerva is rebelling at prison, which I, and a few of my friends, "acted" in, and my good friend David recorded.


2. In a well-developed paragraph reflect upon the lessons you learned as a result of the IOP process. This process includes the preparation of your presentation, its delivery, and the subsequent reflection you engaged in following the presentation
itself.

Oral presentations are always useful experiences, it's a chance to demonstrate one's public speaking abilities and practice interacting with a crowd. The IOP process wasn't very different from the book project we did last year, except that this is "official" and it focused almost entirely on the book rather than the hook. I was brutally harsh and critical of myself in my reflection, and rightly so, because I know I could have done much better, but no use crying over spilled milk, I usually learn from my mistakes. I ought to have practiced more for timing, planned it out more thoroughly in advance and narrowed my thesis statement. It was very useful to watch my presentation because I had a chance to observe my body language and my speech and get a different perspective.

Oracle Night

2. How did you like the multi-layered plot? Was the plot too complicated or did you find it engaging? Which plot did you like the best: Sid and Grace's story or Nick Bowen's?

I liked the fact that the plot had more than one story line, without this distinctive aspect of Auster's writing style in Oracle Night, the plot would have probably turned out very ordinary and uninteresting, dare I say boring? There is even more than one "story within the story", because even the story that the protagonist Sydney Orr is writing contains the story Oracle Night , which is where the title of this novel comes from. I found it bizarre that this was the only time Oracle Night was mentioned because I was initially thinking that surely there must be a more significant and symbolic meaning to this intriguing title.
The title is mysterious and the plot is no different. Nevertheless, I found the transitions between the many story lines clear so it wasn't complicated in that sense. Things did get a little confusing however when in Sydney Orrs' life, the lines of reality are blurred. He is connected to his story about Nick Bowen (which he writes in the notorious blue notebook)just like Bowen is connected the the Sylvia Maxwell novel, Orr writes:
"He begins to see a connection between himself and the story in the novel, as if in some oblique, highly metaphorical way the book was speaking intimately to him about his own present circumstances."(pg.55)
According to Auster himself, Oracle Night is book about love and forgiveness, as he told Sean O'Hagan in an interview (the link is posted below).
A lot happens in the last few pages of the novel which contributes to Sydney and Grace's plot, and I found this more interesting than the Nick and Eva's plot because although the latter's started off more interestingly, when Orr locked Nick in a bomb shelter he effectively ended the story. The former plot developed unexpectedly,mostly through the premonitions of Sydney Orr which he documents in his blue notebook.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2004/feb/08/fiction.paulauster1

Reaction to The Rock of Tanios

2. What do you think about the book so far? Is there anything that you especially like or dislike about the plot, setting, or characters?

So far in my reading, The Rock of Tanios has proved to be an agreeable story. It can certainly be considered a 'good book', and I can see why it won the Goncourt Prize in 1993 but it does not necessarily reflect my favorite type of writing personally. I like the characters because Maalouf makes them very believable and real. Gerios, for example is a very dynamic character as his personality changes completely after he murders the Patriarch in the heat of the moment. At first he is the most disciplined of men, but he loosens up after his crime and bonds with his son (though there's a chance Tanios is not his son). Because the novel is set in Lebanon, I can relate to the setting a bit, and the culture of the Lebanese. That said, I'm wasn't familiar with the historical context of the story, and didn't fully understand references to invasions by the Egyptians, etc. So the political aspect of it confused me a little, but as I learned more about that I understood. It is interesting that the setting is quite feudalistic, and that Sheikh's and Amir's ruled Mount Lebanon because it takes us back to a very different time but we can still see some ruins of palaces till today. The plot could be more exiting, it is intriguing enough, but I feel that story sometimes seems to be going too slowly, although the writing does flow nicely. I have a feeling that the end of the novel will be very interesting and I do look forward to the conclusion.

Byron vs. Shakespeare

Q. Compare the poetry of Lord Byron with the poetry of another famous poet (e.g. Shakespeare's sonnets). How does Byron's poetry rate in comparison? Whose poetry do you prefer and why?

Personally, I like Lord Byron's style of writing much more than Shakespeare's, but his poetry differs greatly from that of Shakespeare, so perhaps it is unfair to compare them, nevertheless, I will attempt. Lord Byron is famous for writing long epics ,that form more of a novel than a poem, that easy to read. I feel that Lord Byron is not as inhibited in his writing, although his structure is consistent, because it is an epic and his message does not have to be portrayed in 14 lines ( like sonnets) he can be more flexible and even digress into autobiographical allusions. I thoroughly enjoyed reading canto the 1st of Childe Harolds Pilgrimage, and canto the 1st and 2nd of Don Juan ( what is considered to be his best work). I didn't feel stressed to find the hidden meaning behind each stanza (unlike Shakespeare who is known for his clever puns), the storyline was very clear, but that is not to say it is completely devoid of the elements of literature that make poetry special. Lord Byron's tone is usually light-hearted even though the subjects he deals with are not shallow or superficial. He tackles themes similar to those of Shakespeare, primarily, love. Lord Byron goes a step further and expands his themes to include a commentary on human nature, where important life lessons are learned, such as in Don Juan. He has a very different approach to Romantic Poetry and in his epics, he makes good natured fun his peers, the typical romantic poets of his time who got caught up in the sentimental aspect of love.
Lord Byron points out the flaws of love and man, as opposed to glorifying them. For me, it's simply a more enjoyable read with Byron, because of his delightful twisted humor. If I give Lord Byron a 5 out of 5, I think Shakespeare would have to receive a 3 1/2 out of 5.

Just another face in the crowd

She sits amongst others
Gregarious and cordial
Her smile and twinkling eyes
a mask on her well-crafted face
her laugh, loud and boisterous
yet infectious, fills the room

But listen closely, that sound is a croak
take a closer look
her eyes that seem to twinkle from afar
are in fact cold and bottomless
Grey and unsettled as a storm in a sea

The lines on her face
are few and far between- but deep
and she buries her sorrow in their trenches
filling them with memories of a time long forgotten

A foreigner to her emotions
she remains a perpetual spectator
bleeding from within from the secrets she harbors
her toxic burdens
numb her nerves

Yet her mask will never fall
nor will she ever be broken
because all her virtues won't outweigh
the fact that she lacks a genuine heart

Reaction to Disgrace

I enjoyed reading the first few chapters of Disgrace, as they were captivating and intriguing, but I soon lost interest after Lurie broke up with Melanie and had to move in with Lucy, maybe because the juicy part of the book was over and the dry, philosophical part began, with Lurie trying to figure out what to with the rest of his life. I don’t really like Coetzee’s writing style, especially with all the allusions he makes, and the Latin/German phrases he uses. Chapter twenty was particularly difficult to get through because it is the part of the novel when Lurie is working on his Byron opera and he keeps paralleling it to his own life and he makes frequent references to one of Byron’s lovers, Teresa. I think that aspect of his writing limits his audience to literary scholars or connoisseurs. Also, he doesn’t go into detail about anything, and Lurie ponders over things briefly, which is reflected in the use of short sentences. The only thing I found smart was Coeztee’s use of the commas are in the first sentence of the book in that they slow down the pace of reading and introduce the basic information about David Lurie;

“For a man of his age, fifty-two, divorced, he has, to his mind, solved the problems of sex rather well.”

If Coetzee was trying to reflect on the situation of South Africa post-apartheid, I don’t think he went about it in the most effective way, except maybe for portraying the white guilt Lucy has as a result of the apartheid. Because it is written in the third person limited point of view, we are only privy to the emotions (even though his emotions are also limited) and thoughts of David Lurie. This makes it difficult for us, at first, to understand the reasons behind why Lucy adamantly refuses to report the rape.

Overall, I do not think it is a novel worthy of distinguished merit or a Booker Prize. I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone, unless perhaps they are ardent fans of Byron and would read any work in which he mentioned. It’s almost like an advertisement of other books, plays and poems and I think it would only interest poetry professors from South Africa. I appreciate that there must be something important I missed while reading and hope that after class discussions I can understand it more fully. Perhaps J.M Coetzee is a good writer- after all, he won the Nobel Prize for Literature (so there has to be something to him), but it’s safe to say, in my opinion, even though I haven’t read anything else by him, Disgrace is certainly not his best work.