Act of Resistance

For my act of resistance, i decided to use chalk drawing to get my point across. i used this method because i've seen it before (on the college campus, cause i live real close by) and i know that a lot of people will see it simply because they will walk over it, and since a lot of people look at the ground, they will at least get a glimpse that will spark their interest to take time to read it. now sadly, i made it, and then it started snowing, so i don't actually think a lot of people saw it since 1) not many people probably went out, 2) the snow melted and made the ground wet, 3) then the snow stayed and everything is covered in snow so you can't see it.

but anyways, my act of resistance was one against consumerism. Consumerism has taken over our country and, i believe, it is a big cause for the lack of empathy and humanity in people. With people's whole focus on goods and the next big thing, they become selfish and forget the true morals and thoughts that we should live by. Consumerism causes selfishness and disinterest in the well being of anyone other than yourself or someone you care about. it also prevents us from taking steps that can improve our economy and quality of life. So i hope to raise awareness about the effects of consumerism on this country and people, and though i don't expect consumerism to stop (obviously) i want people to realize the harm that consumerism can cause, and i want them to be more aware of it and change to make the effects of consumerism not as damaging.

The Boycott

ok, so my actual real last post on lysistrata is tied in with the boycott. i just wanted to compare the two and how the boycott was supposed to be like, the modern day lysistrata, but in reality really wasn't at all except for the character's name (Lysistrata / Lyssa Stratan), the manner of achieveing the goal (sex strike) and one scene (Myrrhine & Kinesis / President & Ismenia). other than that there really was no connection between the two. 

I think that there easily could be more of a connection, the plot of lysistrata (just looking at the actions) is one that could easily be repeated, and in fact, has been many times.

- One group holds all the power (G1)

-G1 ignores Group 2 (G2)

-G2 gathers and makes a plan to solve the problem at hand

-G2 demands attention from G1 (rebellion)

-Ongoing conflict between G1 & G2 (stalemate)

-Both groups try to win over the other group

-G1 gives in

Last Thoughts of Lysistrata

Overall, i didn't really like this play. it was a nice change in pace, but i kinda thought that there wasn't really much to it. i thought the plot was creative, very original, but at the same time its something that doesn't spark my interest or hold my attention. also, there were a lot of things that i didn't really get ( like the chorus and other lines that weren't explained). maybe if we had gone over this more carefully, and i actually got more of the information and understood it, i might have liked it better, but at the moment, it definitely isn't my favorite.

The Commissioner

I think that the commisioner is a stuck up traditional old fool. He gets really upset about how the women took over the Akropolis, and constantly leads attempts to try to get them out and get rid of them, and refuses to even try to look at things in a different light. He is also a scared hypocrite, sending soldiers out to capture the women and scorning and insulting them when they don’t, while he hides safely away from them. Also, he doesn’t even try to listen to lysistrata, dismissing her idea as womanly nonsense, judging that she doesn’t know anything that’s going on simply because she is a woman. His sexist frame gets a shock when the women dress him up as a woman, and sputters in aggravation saying how he was going to report the “monstrous maltreatment of a public official”, showing further how he has a very large ego and thinks that he is better than the rest. He even gets drunk when he realizes that things aren’t going his way, acting like a child and a stuck-up brat.

Love

In the intro, the play was said to be not just about sex, but about love, and the bond between the husband and the wife. I don’t really know about this, I’m trying to see the love in the story, and yes, I get the obvious love between husband and wife, but at the same time I don’t actually see it as love - not as I’ve seen love in the past plays. I don’t see the love between lysistrata and her husband (how he treats her), I don’t see the love between myrrhine and kinesis (he’s saying those things just to get her to bed) and especially when Peace is brought in and holds the attention of all the men. 

Now, the love I’m talking about is the husband-wife love. Other love I see a lot of, there is the love for their country and fellow man, the love for the safely of those they care about, and ect. But even though I know that the desire for their husbands to come home from the war stems from love, I don’t see it as the same love that I though should be there. But of course, I may simply have strange views on love, or what love is.

Kleonike

On page 24 I notice that when lysistrata asked for the other women’s support to end the war (before telling them that the way was to abstain from sex) Kleonike responds with 

“you can count on me! If you need money, I’ll pawn the shift off my back ---Aside and drink up the cash before the sun goes down.”

I never really got this, Kleonike throughout the play seems to be a close friend of lysistrata and one of the main women holding the strike in place, yet here she is pledging her support, only to then seem to be very shady and not supportive at all. I mean, she says, I’ll do everything I can to give you money, but then use it all right away instead. I just want to know everyone’s thoughts on this, so hopefully I can understand it better.

Husband and Wife relationships

I wanted to explore the relationship between the athenian husband and wife that led to the women taking power. From listening to Lysistrata tell about how she always asked her husband how the war was going and if they were getting closer to peace, and how he replied with “What’s that to you? Shut up!” and if they persued the matter she was threatened with a clout on the head (56), its fairly easy to see that the women were not treated with much respect or given much power. However, this slightly contradicts as the women were the head of the household in the sense that they took care of everything at home, from children to cooking to managing the budget. Also, then factoring in how easily the women were able to make them men bow to their wants, I wonder who held the true power in the relationship. The husband, who portrayed having complete control and power (through possible physical and mental abuse?), and seemingly to manipulate others to get their wants (kinesis using his son to get to myrrhine); or the wife, who actually manages the household and succumbs to the husbands wants, but is easily able to take power and control as soon as they want to?

24-Hours

One thing I have to keep reminding myself is that this play happens in 24-hours. Now, I always thing that it takes a much longer time than that, as I truely don’t think that the men would give in that easily. I also wonder over what time it really must have been. I mean, the play starts off with lysistrata having a meeting in the morning. Then during the part of the play where a lot of the women were trying to get out, Kleonike says “and those goddamned holy owls; all night long, tu-wit, tu-wit - they’re hooting me out into my grave!” (73) Finally, when the whole group is going to make peace, they stop at the commissioner’s house. He is drunk and carrying a torch - two things that signifiy that it is later towards evening. Now, I know I’m being very literal with all this, but I just wanted to try to figure out exactly what the time frame was, as I never was really explained. Also, by figuring this out, I can see that Lysistrata follows the morning to evening storyline. Meaning that it starts in the morning, a time of new beginings and starts (lysistrata bringing up her idea, all the women going against their roles) and it ends in the evening, signifying closure and and end (to the war).

PEACE

Peace is an important motif in this play. Throughout the dialog (especially in the beginning and end), Peace is the goal that the women want, as well as the men (by the end). After reading how Peace was also a person, it got me thinking; whenever I write peace, I usually write it lower-case, however throughout the play it was always uppercase. Now, I don’t know if I’m just crazy and don’t know that peace should have an uppercase, but I was thinking that maybe it could be a little bit more. After re-reading the play with the knowledge that Peace was also a woman, quite a few of the lines in the beginning of Lysistrata could easily apply to peace as the concept, as Peace as in the woman. So it makes me wonder whether Lysistrata was planning to use Peace (the woman) in the first place. For example, on page 24, Lysistrata says “we can force our husbands to negotiate Peace…” where at first, I thought that the mesage was fairly obvious - she wants the athenian men to get together with the spartan men and stop fighting. But after reading this, and remembering how, in the end, the husbands really DID negotiate Peace (the woman) I wonder whether this was just another part of her plan. 

The Spartans

In Lysistrata, we only see/hear two Spartans, and oly one of them is actually characterized. Lampito is the spartan woman that is to hold and lead the same idea to abstain from sex in Sparta, and though she holds an important role, she is only present in the beginning. The other spartan, who is only present at the end for peace negotiations, isn’t even given a name. Actually (after looking through the text), it says that a whole delegation of spartans come, but because Aristophanes only refers to the speaker as “Spartan” it’s hard to tell whether the one speaking is the same person or different people. The spartans also have a very distinct dialect or speech. In the Notes (115) it said that the spartans dialect was based off of an american mountain dialect - to me, at least, it sounds like the speech of a southern redneck or countryman. 

I think Aristophanes uses these two things, the lack of distinction and characterization of the delegation of Spartans, as well as their spech to highlight the differences between the Athenians and the Spartans and to show how the Athenians thought of the spartans. The lack of distinction gives the feeling that each spartan had no real value or personal value, and they were just all grouped together as if they had no individual thoughts, as if they weren’t important enough to be separate. The spartan dialect also gives a feeling like the spartans weren’t smart and didn’t have good ideas or thought processes - which isn’t true as both Lampito and the delegation of spartans brought good ideas and new perspectives to the table.

Beginning Thoughts of Lysistrata

Unlike the past two plays, which were fairly dark and tragic, i'm glad to see that Lysistrata will be a good change in pace. Its a play that is more comical and i think will be more enjoyable to read. One thing that all three plays share is the theme of women taking control and power, though this has a different twist than the other two. Unlike in the house of bernarda alba and hedda gabler, no power or control started in the hands of the women, it was all given to the men. The women fulfilled their duty as the "traditional wife", staying at home and not interferring with the men and their decisions. This changes though when the women get fed up with the war and take power into their own hands. By doing this, it becomes kind of apparent that the men never had true power, they only had the illusion of power from the women letting them do what they want. the women had the real power, as seen with how easily they were able to take it and render the men helpless.

Light and Dark

There is another contrast between the beginning and end of the play, and this is of the setting. In the beginning, the setting was very lively and optimistic. The rooms were awash in natural light and a lot of detail was seen. It was also very colorful, the room being covered in flowers and the autumn colors seen through the door and windows. In the beginning, the setting was also during the morning. As the play continues, time does too. In the ending, the setting takes place in the evening. And though the physical setting is the same, its described completely differently. At the ending of the play, the setting is covered in darkness, with only one source of light available. There is almost no detail, and the tone is very depressing and suspenseful.
The beginning started off with such promise, there was hope and light. But it ended with such sadness and depression. This change could be caused by hedda. The hopeful beginning existed with the absence of Hedda, and the end existed centered around her.

Thea's Growth

Thea is a very dynamic character, completely changing from the start of the play to the end. In the beginning, Thea was very meek and timid, and had no self-esteem or power. However as the play continues, this changes. First, we find that Thea does have power - over Lovborg. Also, as she develops a relationship with lovborg, she becomes more confident in herself. Finally we see a complete change in Thea by the end, especially in consideration of her research and work. When she and lovborg fight over the book and his alleged actions, she becomes a strong powerful woman, someone in complete contrast of herself in the beginning. Also, when she and Tesman join together to try to sort out the notes to re-write the manuscript, she once again transforms into a strong confident driven woman, someone who finally takes control of her own life.

Brack vs. Hedda

Hedda and Brack are the two main characters that are looking for control in Hedda Gabler, however they both have very different ways of gaining that power and control. Hedda is very brash and takes a very forward approach. She is used to getting what she wants, and does not try to hide her distain of others. She immediately expects to be able to gain the control and power over others with no thought or consequence. Brack on the other hand, has a completely different approach. He fools his victims, gets friendly and invades their life before stealing control and power out from under them. Most of the people he holds control over don't even realize it because they hold trust in him and consider him one of their friends. This causes the contrast between Hedda and Brack, because while they both want control and power, only Brack is successful in gaining it.

Hedda's Control Part 2

Aunt Rina is one of the characters that is more of a part of the background then part of the play. But one thing i noticed is that we can connect her illness to the level of control that hedda has. In the beginning of the play Berta comments on how aunt rina is helpless and relys on others, meaning that other have control of her. This can connect to how hedda is helpless and has always been controlled by someone, from her father to tesman to brack. Also, throughout the play, aunt rina gets sicker and sicker, just like hedda loses more and more control. Finally illness takes over and aunt rina dies. And just as aunt rina lost all her health to illness, hedda lost all control to brack, causing her to kill herself.

Hedda's Control Part 1

Earlier for my artistic response, i portrayed Hedda as a puppet, with different characters controlling different parts of her. I put Judge Brack in control of her head. This is because he, by the end of the story, had complete control over her; he was able to control her every move and notion (except of course, her own death as seen). Then Tesman and Lovborg each had control over one of her arms and hands. This is because they both have direct affects and control over her actions through their relationship with her. Lovborg has control because Hedda is obsessed with gaining control over someone, namely him. Through this desire for control, Lovborg controls hedda bcause he has the power to decide whether she gets that control or not. Tesman on the other hand, has control because he is her husband, and gains power and control over her simply from that. Finally, Thea and the general have control over her feet. This is because though they do not have direct control over Hedda, instead, they prevent the amount of power and control she can have. Thea holds control over some of the characters that hedda wants control over, like Lovborg, and the general still holds control over her even though he is dead. Both of these characters prevent Hedda from gaining more control and power, and prevent her from moving forward.

Suicide

This kinda connects with my last blog on the general. Basically, Hedda wants to control other's lives, and she tries to do this throughout the play. However, she realizes she can't (as Brack, namely, and Thea have control over those she wants to control), so she turns to suicide. Once again, because she is still obsessed with the concept of controlling others, she does not go for her own suicide. Instead she convinces Lovborg to commit his own. This way she still felt responsible for controlling his action, and not being involved in scandel (as it was earlier; in their younger days, Hedda was going to shoot Lovborg but didn't because she was afraid of scandel). When she first heard that Lovborg was dead, she was thrilled, because she had finally succeeded in controlling another's life. So, when she found that someone else had killed him, someone else had done what she was afraid of doing, someone else had took control of his life, she was devistated. This disappointment was futher made worse when Brack discovered what happened, and gained full control over her. So with this, she lost all the power and control she had, making her turn to suicide, as her death was the last thing that she had control over.

The General

I think that there is one character in this play that is looked over completely, and that is the General, Hedda's father. Though he obviously does not have a speaking role and does not physically take place in the play, he does have a very important role. I think that the General is the main reason why Hedda is how she is, he's the reason behind her quest for control. Because of the family's standing and simply because the General was used to being in command, i imagine that Hedda's life when growing up lacked a lot of freedom. She was probably constantly pushed around and controlled by her father, and i think that it was because of this that she developed her need for control. Also i think that he still held control over her even after his death. This is shown in the beginning and end of the play. At the beginning, in the description of the setting a picture of the general was shown to be in the the drawing room, right above the sofa, in the middle of the place where most action takes place; somewhere that he can still constantly look after Hedda from. Though not directly mentioned again, whenever characters are sitting down or in the drawing room, he is still part of the situation. The end though, is probably the most important part that i'm trying to show. The general's picture was right above the sofa, the same sofa that Hedda commited suicide on. This shows Hedda's last act of rebellion against her father, her last attempt to gain control. She finally gained control of herself by going against the power her father still had over her, and killing herself right in front of him.

Tesman vs. Lovborg

One thing that has been seen throughout the play is the concept of time and how each character is associated with different time periods. This is probably one of the bigger characteristics of each character as well and you can definitely see it with Lovborg and Tesman. If you look at the two, they are actually very similar; they are both scholars, publish books, have relationships with Hedda, are controlled by Hedda, have very low self-esteem, base their actions off others, and most importantly, have writing their next book as the main focus in their life. This is where the concept of time splits them - Tesman's book is all about the past, while Lovborg's book is all about the future. Tesman is fully concerned about past events, as fully demonstrated in his speech. He loves talking about the past and tries to relate it to his present (as most seen with Aunt Julie). Also, he rarely uses and form of speech with the future, always using past tense, even referring to present actions in the past (like when Hedda killed herself, "Shot herself! Shot herself in the templ! Can you imagine!") This even furthur demonstrates how he doesn't seem to see present situations as present situtations, instead he sees them as past situations that he can look at, research, and comment on. This completely differs from Lovborg. First off, Lovborg is writing a book about the future, something that cannot really be done. Also, Lovborg does not focus on his past, and tries to separate himself from it (as seen with his refusal to drink). Lovborg also often talks in the future tense, talking about things he will do or would like to do.
This difference in time fully separates and differentiates Lovborg and Tesman. Though the two are very similar, this outlook in time shows their different personalities and outlook on life. Lovborg, with his futuristic views, has much more hope and faith, and is more easily broken and let down, as nothing is set in stone. Tesman on the other hand, is less phased by things, and is more oblivious to what is going on around him, as his mind is set in the past and therefore sees his life as he wishes it to be, taking event from the past and viewing them how he wants to.

Love is out of the question

while we were going through act one during class, i noticed a line that caught my eye and, in my opinion, really shows how hedda feels about her marriage to tesman. already in act one, you can kinda feel that hedda is pretty cold and obviously does not share the same enthusiasm about tesman as he does about hedda. the quote on page 246-247 "it was part of our bargain that we'd live in society-that we'd keep a great house-" further shows that hedda does not love tesman. First off, hedda says "bargain" when she is actually speaking about her marriage to tesman. she treats her marriage like it was a deal, a trade-off; tesman gets her as a wife as long as hedda gets to keep her lifestyle as before; a good house and staying high in society. later on page 147, when hedda finds that she cannot have many things that she wanted to have, such as a butler or a riding horse, she becomes very cold towards tesman "her eyes cold" because she does not need to pretend to like him anymore, because he can't give her what she wants. She also speaks and looks at him with scorn, further showing how not only does she not like him, but she doesn't respect him either, and believes herself to be above him.

First Impresiones of Hedda Gabbler

In my first impression of Hedda Gabbler, i found that at first, it was fairly boring. There is not much action, and there is only petty arguments from fairly boring or dislike-able characters. However, once reading further, the plot thickens as you lean more about the situations and what is happening, such as the relationship between Hedda and the judge, and Hedda's real feelings about George are revealed. As more drama is introduced, i find that i will probably have to re-read this to sort everything out.