Blood Wedding #2

Prompt: Stylistic techniques (imagery, figurative language, sensory detail)

I'm not sure if this counts as a "stylistic technique" but I would like to focus on the image of water in Blood Wedding. We first see the image of water in Act I when the Neighbor speaks to Mother, "The children who take water out to the reapers are black from the sun" (16). Reapers are defined as a person who reaps (to cut, gather, or take). Therefore, to take something to a reaper means to give up and lose something. From this it is said that the children will become "black from the sun." This has a negative meaning because to turn black from the sun could indicate that one has been spending too much time under the heat. Additionally, this can be connected to being burned because when something is burned only black ashes remain. So from this sentence we can see a warning that water is a dangerous substance that if given away can have negative impacts. It can also show a sacrifice because the children are willingly giving these things up.
This idea is continued into the the next scene when the Mother-In-Law and Wife are reciting the lullaby. In it it says, "The horse does not want water" (17). This shows that even though water is essential for us to survive, to refuse it means that there maybe negative connotations to the word. Further on into the lullaby it says, "The horse begins to drink[...]The horse begins to cry" (27). Like the neighbor quote, when water is consumed negative outcomes appear. In this quote when the horse begins to drink, it also begins to cry or show sorrow for its action. Another way to look at it is that the horse does not have control over its action. It is instinct to thirst and drink even if one desires not to. Therefore, water can be a symbol of a renewed life because it is essential to drink to survive.
In the previous two examples we have seen water in a sort of idolized positions because it is given power to bring negative impacts and control others. Towards the end of the second act Mother states after finding the Bride gone, "Honorable women throw themselves into the water, the decent ones" (77). We once again see this idea of water being a idolized, special object. In it it shows that only "honorable women" should have the ability to sacrifice themselves into the water. This is significant because we can connect this back to the horse example and see that both show how water is a symbol of something that has larger control and power over others.
Though I haven't read enough of the play to really understand what the symbol of water represents, I would like to believe that the image is represented in a way to show that it stands for something that has more control over a situation than the most "honorable" of people. And that it will be significant because this "water" can determine the outcome of a situation, whether negative or positive.

Wild Duck Journal #1

Prompt: Setting: This includes cultural as well as geographical and historical setting. What effect does the setting have on story, character, theme?

There is a contrast between the setting in Act I and Act II. Act I takes place in the Werle's House. It is described as, "A richly and comfortably furnished study, with bookcases and upholstered furniture...brightly lit by lamps and candelabra." (119). Additionally, there are multiple rooms and the scene opens up with a manservant and a hired waiter. Act II takes place in Hjalmar Ekdal's studio. The studio is described as, "The studio is simply but comfortably furnished and decorated...on the table is a lighted lamp with a shade; by the stove an old armchair. Photographic apparatus and equipment of various sorts are set up here and there in the room. At the left of the double doors stands a bookcase containing a few books..." (137). This change in setting can show the different social classes that these two families are in. The Werle's house is much more furnished and shows the wealth that the Werle family has. On the contrary, Ekdal's studio is less furnished and crowded with stuff. This connects with the story because Old Ekdal had all his fortune torn away from him since the scandal. Therefore, the poor furnished studio shows the effect of the scandal on the family. There is also a lack of food in the Ekdal's household. Act II opens up with Hedvig and Gina speaking about the money strains and how hungry Hedvig is. Whereas, there is a banquet at the Werle's household with excess food.

Furthermore, the setting change connects to the motif of blindness. Since the Ekdal family is living in a much more darker home, there is this sense that they cannot see what is going on. Like the plot of the book, there are many unknown truths that will be soon revealed. For example, there maybe an affair between Gina and Hakon Werle. This is unknown to Hjalmar and thus he is living in the dark.

There is also a connection to the theme of improving one self. Hjalmar is set on restoring his family's name. So the setting in his studio illustrates how low he's starting at and the Werle's House serves as what he wishes to achieve.

Oedipus Journal #4

Prompt: Narrative structure: How has the plot (not the story) been constructed? Are there parts? Is the plot circular? Subplots? How important/effective is the ending? Has everything been revealed by the end or are there unanswered questions? Does this matter? What period of time has been covered? Is time important?

How has the plot been constructed? The plot is constructed mostly through word of mouth. The chorus and the messenger provide a lot of the insight into what is happening in the book. There are no insights into the character's thoughts, we are only presented with what is said out loud.

Are there any parts? No, it is a play that moves from scene to scene but there's no clear stop or end.

Is the plot circular? Yes, the play starts with a clear problem and a clear message from the God: find and kill Laius' killer. By the end of the play, the killer is revealed.

Subplots? Partially. Oedipus' search for his biological parents occurs during the same time as the search for Laius' murderer.

How important/effective is the ending? The ending is very effective. There is a sense of irony in the play. Oedipus first learns that he was the killer of his own father by a blind prophet and now Oedipus is blind. The ending is important because it solves the problems that were originally asked in the beginning of the play.

Has everything been revealed by the end or are there unanswered questions? The main problems were solved, but Oedipus whereabouts are still unknown. It is revealed that he will be exiled but there's not clear place that is says he will go.

Does this matter? No, the main point of the novel was not where Oedipus ends but the fact that he was a great leader that lost all of his power.

What period of time has been covered? There was no clear amount of time covered but it did not feel like a lot of time passed between the beginning and end.

Is time important? No, I do not believe it was.