Reading the play “A Doll House” by Henrik Ibsen I was much more interesting in reading than I expected. I have never been involved in theater or acting, and thought that reading the play would be difficult to follow because of how it is written. Having the setting described separately and the characters’ names before they speak is not something I am used to. I also didn’t think it would catch my attention and make me want to continue reading. But I was definitely proven otherwise.
The play caught my attention because I thought the relationship between Torvald and Nora was healthy and happy. I actually thought it was almost like a love story, with a twist. To me they appeared to have a wonderful relationship; Torvald had pet names for his wife and really seemed to care about her. Nora didn’t act as though she would ever think about leaving Torvald. She was even willing to commit forgery for him, whether it was the right choice or not. She appeared to love her children more than anything in the world! But at the end of the play, she left them anyways! I wonder what was going on the whole time that I missed. Nora must have been feeling unhappy and dissatisfied with her life and her relationships. There must have been built up guilt, anger, and frustration. I can’t imagine that she all of a sudden decided it was necessary to leave because Torvald learned about her crime. Especially knowing he forgave her for it.
To me, her excuse of leaving was exactly that; an excuse. She must have always wanted to leave and felt unsure of who she was and wanted to try and figure it out. So when Torvald learned of her crime, she was able to blame her leaving on that. Torvald proved again that he loved her by having that unconditional forgiveness. To forgive a person of a crime that you feel is beyond appalling, he must have had feelings for her or else he would have chosen to live a life without her. But he still wanted to make things work; he still wanted her as part of his life, as well as in their children’s lives.
This drama had passion, deception, forgiveness, misunderstanding, love, and all sorts of emotions. It drew in the audience and had twists and turns. It kept the audience intrigued and wanting to know what the outcome would be. I think this play was very well written, and it convinced me that I am a fan of drama!
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Friday, July 4, 2008
Fiction Blog
After reading a variety of short fiction stories, my eyes were opened to the variety of characters, plots, settings, themes, narrations, and points of view that they can possess. I have never read something as complex as “Hills Like White Elephants” by Ernest Hemingway. I had to read my classmates’ comments and my professor’s blog to comprehend what I had just read. I realized that fiction can have controversial topics, use metaphors, and have hidden meanings. I used to think of fiction as being trivial; childish. It was something I read in elementary school purely for entertainment. But there is so much more to it.
The character Bartleby, in “Bartleby the Scrivener” by Herman Melville , is someone with problems that are never known to the reader. I thought that reading the story, I would have the solution solved, I would know what had been wrong with him, and I would no longer think of Bartleby. But that is not at all the case. I read the story. I still don’t know what was wrong with Bartleby. I still think about Bartleby. I still wonder, “How could things have been different?” “What in his life made him prefer not to do things, and brave enough to say no to a boss?” I actually have to THINK after reading this story! I came up with many assumptions and guesses while I was reading, but they all seemed to prove to be incorrect. But I never did find an answer. But is that answer important? I realized that making the reader think, making the reader intrigued, and making the reader learn are all important parts of fiction. It is okay that I never knew why Bartleby preferred not to do things. As a matter of fact, it was good that I never knew. Had I known, it would have taken away from the story. I would have paid attention to different details. In this story, describing the character less was actually more for the reader.
The character Bartleby, in “Bartleby the Scrivener” by Herman Melville , is someone with problems that are never known to the reader. I thought that reading the story, I would have the solution solved, I would know what had been wrong with him, and I would no longer think of Bartleby. But that is not at all the case. I read the story. I still don’t know what was wrong with Bartleby. I still think about Bartleby. I still wonder, “How could things have been different?” “What in his life made him prefer not to do things, and brave enough to say no to a boss?” I actually have to THINK after reading this story! I came up with many assumptions and guesses while I was reading, but they all seemed to prove to be incorrect. But I never did find an answer. But is that answer important? I realized that making the reader think, making the reader intrigued, and making the reader learn are all important parts of fiction. It is okay that I never knew why Bartleby preferred not to do things. As a matter of fact, it was good that I never knew. Had I known, it would have taken away from the story. I would have paid attention to different details. In this story, describing the character less was actually more for the reader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)