Susan Glaspell's 'Trifles'

A woman walks into a bar in 1916. She sits down and asks for a drink. No one pays attention to her because she's a woman. Ha-chi-chi-cha.

'Trifles' is a one act play focused around the workings of two women who work to solve the murder of a man whom they know abused his wife, the murderer. The main theme of the play is to show a solidarity between women and the uselessness of a justice system without a full spectrum of views.

I mainly enjoy the use of symbolism in the story, especially with that of the canary. Birds are often used as symbols of freedom, womanhood and fragility. A caged bird especially holds a connotation of restriction of what would be a noble creature, but is now forced into a life of solitude and separation, which we can see if the case with the main character, Mrs. Wright. She had her one passion and love in her home, and it was for her bird. Mr. Wright strangles the creature, symbolizing a breaking point for Mrs.Wright, and a plot point in giving her a motive to enact a murder. She only needed a push; the straw that broke the house-wife's back.

We see a lot of misogynistic rhetoric throughout the entire piece, even outright refusal to take interest in the kitchen, which is a 'woman's area'. The 'trifles' of women are not to be of concern, but having such a narrow point of view is what inevitably keeps them from solving the murder case. This is a huge allegory for a push to equal rights for necessity, something that is pretty ahead of its time for 1916.

Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters conceal the dead bird from the authorities. This gives an impression that they sympathize or empathize with Mrs. Wright's situation. Maybe they too long for a taste of freedom away from their cages? They give this chance to Minnie, maybe even living vicariously through the freedom she will now have.

Frankenstein's creation and God's creation of man

So let's begin by saying that I am currently discussing this novel in two different English classes. That's to be expected, right? I mean, it's a classic and a damn good one at that. Mary Shelley really did a lot here, and it's really more than any regular (Student) reader can understand in their first read through.

                                                     

                                           I never knew how much I needed to use this photo in an academic setting

This is an introduction level course so we cover the surface level meaning of the story itself without having to rely too much on outside sources or reference material. It's pretty good alone with just that take...but it's not living up to its full potential that way.

M. Shelley wrote this piece at the height of romantic era poetry being made, her own husband one of the most famous poets of the time. Blake, Byron, Coleridge, Wordsworth, Goethe... she had quite a bit of human inspiration surrounding her, as well as the perilous and looming peaks of Mont Blanc. We have to look about a hundred years prior, however, to Milton's 'Paradise Lost' to find true reference and inspiration. I would even argue that this is the most famous 'fan-fiction' produced of all time, as it is Shelley's own take on PL that formed this novel.

Shelley parallels Frankenstein and his creation to the creation of Adam by God... man playing God, and that subsequent creation being monstrous and outside of what it was intended to be. The biggest twist in this piece is that where Adam had paradise and a lover, Eve, he still spurned the 'love' of his creator, ultimately forfeiting his own paradise. The creation of Frankenstein was 'born' despised by his master, and feared by the one who should have loved him. Even when asking for a partner Frankenstein began the process and the literally through it/her away at the last minute in front of his monster. I'd be a little pissed off too if I was this thing.

Adam and the creature are parallel side of a coin. This is what happens when you are born into an environment of hate instead that of love. Ultimately, however, were both not still miserable? But whereas Adam chased after God when he was thrown from his paradise, Frankenstein followed his creation into his own hell. 

Crazy fork in a road there, am I right?

David Sedaris' 'Jesus Shaves'

Jason Sedaris is an openly gay, radio talk show hosting, world-renowned comedian with a specialty in writing. Damn, what a combination.  

I originally knew Sedaris from his columns in The New Yorker. The man has a way with words that are both relatable and humorous in a way that only he would be able to polish them to a fine finish in print.

In his piece 'Jesus Shaves' we encounter Sedaris who is taking French language classes, and a very humorous exchange of language barrier breaking explanation occurs. I do, however, have one huge bone to pick with this work being included in our Norton Anthology.

Sedaris is meant to deliver these pieces aloud. The humor of this piece in particular is the butchered delivery of explanation that the non-native French speakers try to give about what the Easter holiday means. When we read we scan the sentence and form the proper vision of it in our mind...and then quickly move on. The humor in 'Jesus Shaves' is meant to be linguistically delivered, and our minds don't linger enough on the individual sentences for the real punchline to be effective.

 "He nice, the Jesus.", "He make the good things, and on Easter we be sad because somebody makes him dead today."

This needs to be delivered verbally. 

I believe that the...lackluster response from the class about this piece just helps cement that in my mind. It is easy to read a piece. It is much more challenging to actually analyze what you read. Having a verbal delivery cuts out the middle man of the written, in this case, and would allow the listener to focus on the message and humor more. 

Green Chile by Jimmy Santiago Baca

Poetry is meant to invoke a certain picture or emotion from its reader. Baca clearly feels a deep sense of family and remembrance in such a simple object; the green chile. The beginning of the poem leads to him describing the doorway of a home, something he sees draped in red chiles that adorn the eaves, and provide a clear mental image to him (and the reader) of what he sees when he thinks of home. However, his grandmother loved the green chile. His love for his grandmother was completely wrapped together and whole by the ties that the green chile provided between her and Baca. He sees this spicy fruit as a piece of art, saying in line 17 "From its swan-neck stem, tapering to a flowery collar, fermenting resinious spice." Such a simple thing, but it obviously holds deep meaning to Baca.

The journey that he describes that he sees his grandmother go through with each pepper is almost kind of...lewd. Like i'm reading one of those dirty paperback novels you can buy in the grocery store check out line. In line 25 "Its bearing magnificient and taut as flanks of a tiger in mid-leap, she thrusts her blade into and cuts it open with, with lust on her hot mouth, sweating over the stove" Like, okay, grandma. Calm down there. Someone get this lady a fan.

More than anything this poem takes the reader through a short, yet beautifully described journey of remembrance, family, and ritual that Baca sees every time he holds a green chile in his writer's hand. It is, as he described, a ritual that will be retold each time he and families of others prepare these little plants. He remembers the passion his grandmother had, and he sees it still in the New Mexico men and women who carry bags of these chiles home.

Oedipus the King

Let's go ahead and get this part out of the way.  I despise this story.

To begin; Sophocles is only really remembered for being one of three ancient Greek play writers that has historically documented works still available. His works are long (as most tragedies are), it is difficult to read for modern individuals, and they serve best as they were intended to be performed; as a play. Past that, I don't think this guy was a blast to have at parties. 

This story itself has been overcooked and over-analyzed for decades of literature courses and scholarly discussions. I have been assigned this story to discuss on multiple occasions, and I'm quite frankly tired of it. (No offense, Prof. Kikendall) This work should absolutely be addressed at least once in an English (or Psychology) major's life. Oedipus is a line for line example of a traditional Greek tragedy and can be appreciated thusly, however, in my opinion there is nothing that entails the amount of attention this piece gets.

To discuss the plot seems moot; you have read Oedipus. Anyone who graduated high school has read this within groups and resented their professors for assigning it. The plot is basic; king needs to help his people, king sends his brother-in-law (Uncle) to find help. Brother-in-Uncle says they must find the previous king's killer. I wish this is where a cheesy rom-com would begin, and Oedipus meets a funny, quirky girl and they run away, but that's not how these things work. Oedipus decides to go full Sherlock and solve the murder. He has a prophecy foretold unto him that he will be in an incestuous marriage that will drive him crazy, (Spoiler; it happens) 

Oedipus's wife-mother tells him not to worry about it, weird prophecies happen all the time. I mean afterall, her first born son didn't kill her husband or marry her because she killed him as an infant...right? (Spoiler, she didn't) Lots of story later and discussion with the sheep herder he finds out that, surprise, he actually is the son of the former king whom he killed and is now married to his own mom! The mother, Jocasta, ends her own life on learning the news. Oedipus then goes ham on his eyes with pins from his mother-wife's dress. Now blind, really sad, and disgraced from the thrown he asks his brother-uncle to kill him. Alas, what tragedy would be complete without a loose ending? The play ends with our incestuous fallen king waiting for an oracle to determine his fate.

I just wrote the story in two paragraphs what took Sophocles a small paperweight of a book to do. This piece is over-done, wordy, and boring. I really do not want to read this again. 

Let's end with something that I don't hate; terrible humor.

Why was Oedipus against profanity?

Because he kisses his mother with that mouth.

Bu-dum-tss.