1) I am most proud of my "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" in-class essay because I was able to write an essay about my favorite book, and I feel like I did a really good job answering my essential question for the inquiry project. I feel like I was able to summarize the book in a nice way without being too redundant. I think I've become better at structuring my essays.
2) I think I've become better at reading books that I am not so interested in. For example, for my inquiry project I had to read the Scarlet letter, and although it was really hard to continue reading, I knew I had to read it or else I wouldn't be able to write my in-class essay. I also got better at understanding books like these because I started looking up helping online instead of just trying to figure out the answers myself, going around in circles, and staying confused.
3) I think I need to learn how to read more lengthy books without getting frustrated, especially ones with advanced vocabulary. I'm pretty good with vocabulary, but I think I need to expand my vocabulary a little more in order to prepare myself for college.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
Post #8 (For 12/03/10)
This week we have been working on our inquiry project even further. At first we just read our books, but now we are going further into the project by analyzing them even further and adding annotations to prepare our abstracts and presentations. Aside from this, I also have to work on my honors part of the project, which means that I have an additional essay to write on a poem of my choice. This is kind of difficult for me, because I feel like there is not much that is able to be written about a poem. This is especially hard for me because my poem might mean something to me while to other people it might mean something else. I'm kinda scared that I will write an essay other people won't be able to understand because they won't think my interpretation of the poem is right. Hopefully I can write a decent essay by Tuesday.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Post #6 (For 11/12/10)
This week I edited my essay and turned it in. This is the final version of my essay, what do you think?
A classic example of a tragedy would be the story of Oedipus Rex. Oedipus follows the belief of Aristotle; tragedy imitating noble actions. Greek tragedies, such as Oedipus, coincide with Aristotle’s beliefs in the sense that they were greatly influenced by Gods, with great heroes having a tragic fall which they cannot come back from but still learn something from in the end. Oedipus was a successful person in the eyes of the Greeks, and was looked up to by many people. His tragic fall was determined by a destiny he could not escape although he tried to. Eventually, towards the end of the story, he suffered a tragic fall because he could not handle the reality of his past. Although these events were very depressing and tragic, Oedipus still learned the valuable lesson of not being able to change his destiny, which was seen by the people surrounding him as well.
Although philosophers such as Aristotle would agree with the idea of Oedipus being a classic tragedy, many modern writers would disagree. An example of a person who opposes Aristotle’s views would be Joseph Krutch, who expresses many of his views in his essay “Tragedy, Vision, and Firm.” Aristotle’s belief that tragedy is an imitation of noble actions is not something that Krutch necessarily supports, but rather he asserts that we can no longer use this model because our “definition” of noble has changed. This is also because of the fact that the word “noble” cannot be automatically linked to kings and queens, but rather Krutch believes that we should look at the noble actions people perform. He asserts that “no one knows what a noble action is or whether or not such a thing as nobility exists in nature apart from the mind of man. (Krutch)” Krutch insists that the word noble can be seen with many different definitions, so rather than being tragedy being an imitation of noble actions, it is only a representation of actions that are merely considered as noble. Krutch also insists that “All works of art which deserve their name have a happy end,” essentially because this is what constitutes a tragedy as art. His theory explains that while a character might have a tragic fall, the destination or journey to the tragic fall can help the character reach a conclusion that he would not have reached otherwise. Although depressing and tragic events can happen in a tragedy, Krutch believes that we should be thankful for these events because they are ultimately what create a great tragedy. He also contends that every tragedy must eventually lead to its happy ending and that a good must come out of the tragic events which occur throughout the story. Krutch also disagrees with the belief that tragedies must be centered on a belief in God, by asserting that “A tragic writer does not have to believe in God, but be must believe in man. (Krutch)” Krutch is explaining that a character in a tragedy does not necessarily have to have a spiritual faith in order to be considered a tragic hero, but he/she must have a certain faith in human nature. If there is no faith in human nature in the character, then there cannot be a tragic fall.
An opposing opinion to the one of Joseph Krutch and Aristotle would be the opinion of Arthur Miller. In his essay “Tragedy and the Common Man,” he states that he believes that there are less and less tragedies being written in our modern society, and many people believe this is due to the lack of heroes among our society. Aristotle believed that in order for a story to be considered a tragedy, it must contain a great hero, someone is who looked up to and admired by many. Miller’s opinion is quite contradicting to Aristotle’s definition, since he believes that “The common man is as apt a subject for tragedy in its highest sense as kings were (Miller).” Miller continues to defend this opinion by stating that something that can be considered very tragic to people is the feeling of feeling displaced, feeling like we are “being torn away from our chosen image of what and who we are in javascript:void(0)this world (Miller).” Arthur Miller continues to describe that nobody knows this feeling best than the common man. Miller also describes that it is alright for tragedies to end in a depressing tone, as long as there is a possibility for success and it includes optimism.
Aristotle, Krutch, and Miller all have a different definition and philosophy of tragedy. In my opinion, each writer’s definition contains parts which are true. I believe that in in order for a writing to be considered a great tragedy, it must feature a hero who has learned something after experiencing a tragic fall from the outcome of a tragic fault, such as in the story of Oedipus. Oedipus is a “noble” man who is considered powerful and great, and eventually suffers a tragic fall which he cannot recover from, but learns valuable lessons from. I agree with Aristotle when he claims that this is a classic tragedy because of the fact that Oedipus was a “great” tragic hero, but I also believe that a hero of a tragedy does not necessarily have to be a person of power (or “great”). Arthur Miller shares a similar idea with mine in the sense that he believes that the common man can be considered a tragic hero. Joseph Krutch’s opinion relies heavily on the fact that a tragedy must have happy ending, which I believe might not always be the case. If a character in a tragedy learns something from their tragic fall, the tragedy itself can be considered a happy ending, even if the tragedy ends in a depressing tone. An example of this would be the movie “Titanic.” The main characters are prominently rich and powerful, and suffer a great fall after the sinking of the Titanic. However, one of the main characters, Rose, learns at the end that there is no difference between high class and low class other than money, and she had learned to fall in love with a man in a lower class than her. Although the story ends in a very depressing tone, one cannot help but feel happiness for her because of the fact that she experienced such a great love. Stories like these are the ones that leave me feeling like I have just experienced a great tragedy. The definition of tragedy has changed throughout the course of centuries, but one thing is set clear: a story cannot be considered a great tragedy if it does not include a hero who suffers a tragic fall and has good come out of his/her tragic situation.
The Definition Of Tragedy
The definition of tragedy can be different depending on who you ask. Something that is tragic for one person may not be such a tragedy for the other. But what really defines tragedy? Many philosophers and writers across the spectrum have debated on this question, and each has come up with their own philosophies for the definition of a tragedy. An example of a classic definition of a tragedy would be Aristotle’s belief that “tragedy is the imitation of noble actions.” Several modern writers, however, have disagreed with Aristotle’s opinion of what defines a tragedy, such as Arthur Miller and Joseph Krutch. The definition of a tragedy can be defined in many different ways, and can be shown in many modern examples.A classic example of a tragedy would be the story of Oedipus Rex. Oedipus follows the belief of Aristotle; tragedy imitating noble actions. Greek tragedies, such as Oedipus, coincide with Aristotle’s beliefs in the sense that they were greatly influenced by Gods, with great heroes having a tragic fall which they cannot come back from but still learn something from in the end. Oedipus was a successful person in the eyes of the Greeks, and was looked up to by many people. His tragic fall was determined by a destiny he could not escape although he tried to. Eventually, towards the end of the story, he suffered a tragic fall because he could not handle the reality of his past. Although these events were very depressing and tragic, Oedipus still learned the valuable lesson of not being able to change his destiny, which was seen by the people surrounding him as well.
Although philosophers such as Aristotle would agree with the idea of Oedipus being a classic tragedy, many modern writers would disagree. An example of a person who opposes Aristotle’s views would be Joseph Krutch, who expresses many of his views in his essay “Tragedy, Vision, and Firm.” Aristotle’s belief that tragedy is an imitation of noble actions is not something that Krutch necessarily supports, but rather he asserts that we can no longer use this model because our “definition” of noble has changed. This is also because of the fact that the word “noble” cannot be automatically linked to kings and queens, but rather Krutch believes that we should look at the noble actions people perform. He asserts that “no one knows what a noble action is or whether or not such a thing as nobility exists in nature apart from the mind of man. (Krutch)” Krutch insists that the word noble can be seen with many different definitions, so rather than being tragedy being an imitation of noble actions, it is only a representation of actions that are merely considered as noble. Krutch also insists that “All works of art which deserve their name have a happy end,” essentially because this is what constitutes a tragedy as art. His theory explains that while a character might have a tragic fall, the destination or journey to the tragic fall can help the character reach a conclusion that he would not have reached otherwise. Although depressing and tragic events can happen in a tragedy, Krutch believes that we should be thankful for these events because they are ultimately what create a great tragedy. He also contends that every tragedy must eventually lead to its happy ending and that a good must come out of the tragic events which occur throughout the story. Krutch also disagrees with the belief that tragedies must be centered on a belief in God, by asserting that “A tragic writer does not have to believe in God, but be must believe in man. (Krutch)” Krutch is explaining that a character in a tragedy does not necessarily have to have a spiritual faith in order to be considered a tragic hero, but he/she must have a certain faith in human nature. If there is no faith in human nature in the character, then there cannot be a tragic fall.
An opposing opinion to the one of Joseph Krutch and Aristotle would be the opinion of Arthur Miller. In his essay “Tragedy and the Common Man,” he states that he believes that there are less and less tragedies being written in our modern society, and many people believe this is due to the lack of heroes among our society. Aristotle believed that in order for a story to be considered a tragedy, it must contain a great hero, someone is who looked up to and admired by many. Miller’s opinion is quite contradicting to Aristotle’s definition, since he believes that “The common man is as apt a subject for tragedy in its highest sense as kings were (Miller).” Miller continues to defend this opinion by stating that something that can be considered very tragic to people is the feeling of feeling displaced, feeling like we are “being torn away from our chosen image of what and who we are in javascript:void(0)this world (Miller).” Arthur Miller continues to describe that nobody knows this feeling best than the common man. Miller also describes that it is alright for tragedies to end in a depressing tone, as long as there is a possibility for success and it includes optimism.
Aristotle, Krutch, and Miller all have a different definition and philosophy of tragedy. In my opinion, each writer’s definition contains parts which are true. I believe that in in order for a writing to be considered a great tragedy, it must feature a hero who has learned something after experiencing a tragic fall from the outcome of a tragic fault, such as in the story of Oedipus. Oedipus is a “noble” man who is considered powerful and great, and eventually suffers a tragic fall which he cannot recover from, but learns valuable lessons from. I agree with Aristotle when he claims that this is a classic tragedy because of the fact that Oedipus was a “great” tragic hero, but I also believe that a hero of a tragedy does not necessarily have to be a person of power (or “great”). Arthur Miller shares a similar idea with mine in the sense that he believes that the common man can be considered a tragic hero. Joseph Krutch’s opinion relies heavily on the fact that a tragedy must have happy ending, which I believe might not always be the case. If a character in a tragedy learns something from their tragic fall, the tragedy itself can be considered a happy ending, even if the tragedy ends in a depressing tone. An example of this would be the movie “Titanic.” The main characters are prominently rich and powerful, and suffer a great fall after the sinking of the Titanic. However, one of the main characters, Rose, learns at the end that there is no difference between high class and low class other than money, and she had learned to fall in love with a man in a lower class than her. Although the story ends in a very depressing tone, one cannot help but feel happiness for her because of the fact that she experienced such a great love. Stories like these are the ones that leave me feeling like I have just experienced a great tragedy. The definition of tragedy has changed throughout the course of centuries, but one thing is set clear: a story cannot be considered a great tragedy if it does not include a hero who suffers a tragic fall and has good come out of his/her tragic situation.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Post #5 (For 11/05/10)
This week we submitted our first draft of the tragedy essay. To be honest it was kind of difficult for me to write this essay, I kind of feel like it is the worst essay I've written. I think this was mostly because of the fact that I didn't really understand that readings that we were basing our essay off, so that made it really hard for me to write the essay. I really think I can improve on the quotes that I used for my essay, and I also think I need to improve my "I say" section of the essay. I also think I didn't write a very good essay because I kind of put it off until the very last minute, which I don't normally do. I only did this because of the fact that I really did not know what to write or how to start my essay. I think that in order to prepare for the final draft, I should definitely ask more questions. I hope that I can eventually edit this VERY rough draft and create it into an essay I am proud of, not embarrassed of, haha.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Post #4 (For 10/29/10)
This past week we have been reading several readings on different author's views on tragedy and what can be defined as a tragedy. One of the readings stood out to me more than the others because it was talking about how many people nowadays aren't really into the old-fashioned Greek tragedies because nowadays we are more used to seeing more "drama," which can be a lot different from tragedy. I feel like we are more interested in movies, books, and television when they include a lot of drama, sometimes to the point where they can be extremely gory or too unrealistic. I think that it would nice if more of the old-fashioned kind of Greek tragedy was incorporated into modern media. Sometimes drama can be too much drama, and even though tragedies can have a good amount of drama, the hero learns from this drama and essentially becomes a different person. I feel like in modern movies many lead characters go through superficial drama and don't really learn valuable lessons about themselves.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Post #3 (For 10/22/10)
Honestly, when we first started reading Oedipus, I wasn't really into it and I thought it wasn't very interesting. The things happening in the play started getting a lot more interesting though, and it was cool to know what was going to happen in the end. It didn't bother me that I already knew what was happening, I liked seeing how everything unfolded and how everybody found things out and had the truth come out in the open. I liked this because I think that the truth always comes out, and Oedipus is an example of this. I thought the ending was very tragic and dramatic, which made it a lot more interesting. I thought that Oedipus gauging his eyes out was overly dramatic, but I think that he just didn't want to live in a world where the truth was hurting him, so he didn't want to see it anymore. It's sad that people resort to things like this because they are not able to deal with their emotions. I think the story of Oedipus really was a tragedy.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Post #2 (For 10/15/10)
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Post #1 (for 10/08/10)
For this blog post, I want to write about my opinion about what we have talked about in class this week regarding Socrates. Even though his name is difficult for me to pronounce, I can really relate to his views and what he dedicated his life to doing. He went against what others believed and took the chance of questioning things that others would not dare question. I thought it was really unfair that people were going against him just because he was going against the norm, but I don't think that Socrates wanted other people to feel pity for him. He knew that what he was doing was the right thing, ethically and religiously, so it did not make him feel saddened that he was suffering consequences for following his beliefs. I think this is really admirable because these days you don't really see people doing that too often. People care too much about what people think, and reading about Socrates this week and seeing how he didn't care about whether others were against him reminded me of the things that I am going through personally. Socrates is definitely someone to look up to when it comes to pursuing your beliefs and not caring what others think.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)