Lorca Journal #4

In Act 3 Scene 1, Lorca juxtaposes poetry and prose to give some characters a sense of epic while having the other characters under their throne of control. When the Moon speaks in its poetic lyrics it gives it a sense of power and epic, "Who's hiding there? Who sobs beneath the thorns and brambles? The Moon drops down a dagger." (82). The Moon expresses itself as very powerful and almighty especially since it is speaking in a poem. When Leonardo and the Bride enter the stage they begin to speak in what I believe is prose, "The first wild birds of the morning are breaking out of the trees and now the night is dying on the sharp edge of the stone." (91). Yes the characters have nice language but we do not get this same feeling with the Moon reciting poetry. I think Lorca is saying that there are other worldly spirits and beings that just have power and influence on how we live our lives. I also think that since they are using prose the stage directions take away even more, "And I will lie at your feet guarding what you dream, naked watching the fields (Dramatically) [...]" (91). Overall Lorca juxtaposes poetry and prose to lend a sense of epic towards the Moon to convey that there is are beings that have influence over us.

Lorca Journal #3

In Act 2 a lot of young men and women appear as minor characters in the scene of the wedding But they also serve a valuable purpose in determining the theme and overall message of the play. I think these minor characters serve as maybe a conscious to certain major characters in the play. I think they could serve as the conscious for the newly wed Bride and the Groom which some young men asked if they would go have a drink with them. I see they have an influence as to what the characters do and react somewhat. This lead me to believe that they could also serve as the chorus in Lorca's play. Since there is no publicly assigned chorus, some minor characters have to play the part. When the bride is in a room with some of the young girls they talk with each other and seem to ask a lot of questions and reveal that she sort of does not like the idea of marriage. The young men and women in the play play a role of changing the themes of the play by interacting with the main characters in a way that can influence decisions just like a chorus.

Lorca Journal #2

Option #2B:

In Act I of "Blood Wedding" we see Lorca's understanding of the concept of tragedy through a few things. We see it when the Mother-in-Law and the Wife sing a lullaby to Leonardo's child to make him go to sleep. The fact that the lullaby's lyrics are repeated over and over again bring show that the lullaby has a significance in the play. While I was reading through the lullaby that the Mother-in-Law was singing to a child I came upon something interesting, "And in his eyes, A silver dagger, They went to the river, Down to the river! The blood was flowing Stronger than water." (18). Obviously this isn't just some regular lullaby, because this wouldn't be something for a little kid to hear when they are about to go to sleep and that's why it brought my attention. I think Lorca uses forshadow in order to hint to the reader that of course blood will be shed in the end. Lorca might also be using the horse mentioned in the lullaby as a symbol for a greater "force" in the world that we can't control and make us at their mercy.

Ibsen Journal #5

In the argument between Relling and Gregers, they talk essentially about what we had our debate in class today. Gregers believes that a marriage and/or relationship has to be based on truth and not lies, while Relling thinks that living with a lie will just make a person unhappy and not ready for truth, "Deprive the average man of his vital lie, and you've robbed him of happiness as well." (203). Relling takes the opposing side of idealism and thinks of it as useless and pointless when you've got "lies" to base your life upon. "Mr. Werle junior -- don't use that exotic word ideals. Not when you've got a fine native word -- lies" (203). A man will become discontent with their life once they are exposed to the truth. He also sort of implies why bother a man that is already happy with his life to screw it all up in the attempt to tell him the truth. So basically, the truth has nothing to do with happiness. But on the other hand Gregers has a different point of view on what will make a happy life, "He certainly had to pare down his early ideals." (203). Gregers thinks that everybody should have an idealistic life, and feels bad when Old Ekdal had to lower his ideals in life. Relling, at one point, compares people with ideals as sick, "Most of the world is sick I'm afraid. [...] I try to keep up the life-lie in him." (202). Relling was the one who set up Hjalmar's life of lies in order to curtain the truth from him. I think Ibsen's central point on the matter of idealism and truth is that it doesn't matter how you view or live your life whether it being based upon lies or based upon truth. All that matters in life is to be happy whether it is based on lies or the truth. At least that is what I believe on the matter.

Ibsen Journal #4

Realism in Drama
Ibsen displays the motif of blindness and irony through Hedvig and Gregers hope that idealism will cause people to be ignorant and blind to what is really happening. Hedvig is obviously an idealist in the play because she is so happy and positive about everything when there is no reason to be. In the play Hedvig is going blind and is being repeated throughout the play. "It's got to be something good, and then Daddy'll be happy and things will be pleasant again." (193). This is an example of Hedvig being idealistic and telling herself things that she wants to hear happen. When Hedvig is reading the letter for herself Hjalmar gets uneasy about the light she is reading it under, "The eyes, the eyes -- and now that letter." (194). This shows Hedvig's blindness to what is really going to happen later. Gregers is also shown as an idealistic, "I want to establish a true marriage." (186). This is Gregers' intention but ends up doing the exact opposite by telling Hjalmar the truth about Gina and causes this big argument between the two and then Hjalmar proceeds to run out of the house. These characters are so blind to what's really happening and fail to see realism in any part throughout the play.

"The Sea Bird" by Welhaven
Ibsen uses allusion to reference the poem "The Sea Bird" by Welhaven to show when pushed too far it will end in death. There are many instances where the wild duck is referenced in the play for example, "A really fantastic, clever dog, the kind that goes to the bottom after wild ducks when they dive under and bite fast into the weeds down in the mire." (155). Gregers says he wants to be the dog that rescues the wild duck from the bottom of the water just like in the poem the bird dives to the bottom to get away from the hunters. In the poem, the duck essentially kills itself in order to get away from the hunters but only because it was provoked. "But what if you know, of your own free will, sacrifice the duck for his sake." (197). Here Gregers is provoking Hedvig (aka the wild duck) to sacrifice the duck in the garret for her father, but little does he know that since he provoked her she will kill herself just like the bird in the poem. 

Ibsen Journal #3

How is the setting difference from that of Act I? What is the effect of this difference?

In Act I, the scene opened up in Werle's home with nice furniture, nice house, the clinking of glasses, and an overall elegance feel to it. We immediately get the impression that Werle is rich and lives in a nice home. "In the rear wall, open folding doors with the curtains drawn back disclose a large, fashionable room, brightly lit by lamps and candelabra." (119). But once we start reading Act II, you see that the Ekdal's home is part of a whole different social class. "The room which is fairly spacious, appears to be a loft. To the right is a sloping roof with great panes of glass [...]" (137). Now we immediately can tell the difference between the Ekdal's home and Werle's. The description is not as elegant sounding and we know that their home is not as nice like with upholstered furniture. Now since we see the difference life styles of the people we can now put them in their appropriate social classes. Werle belongs in the rich and wealthy class and Hjalmar belongs in the lower/poorer class. The effect of this difference is to get the reader's mind to have already set up which group of people belong in the wealth and the lower. We also get a different point of view in Werle's house than reading in Hjalmar's loft apartment, and see how each of them treat etiquette and interact with each other. 

Ibsen Journal #2

To start off with Werle, Gregers, Hjalmar (kind of) and the rest of the guests mostly follow the "rules" of etiquette. An example of the narration of etiquette, "a knife clinks upon a glass; silence; a toast is made; cries of 'Bravo', and the hum of conversation resumes." (119). The narration tells us that these people are having a nice and formal dinner party. The example of etiquette is found in how they make a toast then with a cry of "Bravo!" shows they come from wealth and are well-mannered. Especially Werle, and how he has a background of being wealthy and proper. The only display Werle shows breaking the rules of etiquette is when Gregers intentionally forces him to have a talk in private which escalated in the end. Gregers, I would say, also shows etiquette mostly. Since he too comes from wealth and status. His father is rich and lives in a nice home with servants and maids. He is the main reason for why his father is throwing the dinner party, which shows that he has a formal way celebrating his return. 

Mrs. Sorby and Hjalmar are kind of at the balance between violating the rules of etiquette and showing etiquette. For starters, Mrs. Sorby was once the housemaid and is acting the role as hostess of the dinner party. Some might consider it ill-mannered for a former housemaid to host a dinner party but she shows that she is moving up the social ladder from a maid to the house mistress. This depends on the way you might interpret breaking the rules of etiquette. Secondly, Hjalmar was on the line of breaking etiquette because he failed to acknowledge his father at the dinner party because his father is of lower social status and definitely condemns etiquette. But, Hjalmar is also showing etiquette by ignoring his father because of his social class, so it kind of gives him an excuse on which ever way you see it. Hjalmar also pretends he did not see his father when Old Ekdal asks if he saw him there, "You didn't see me at all did you? -- No, but they said you'd been through." (141). 

Lastly the character who breaks the most etiquette is Old Ekdal. When the wealthy dinner party guests are having their conversations, Graaber (the librarian and worker) and Old Ekdal enter throught Werle's study and the site of the dinner party which is quite awkward and not allowed. Since these are workers of Werle, it is socially unacceptable to have your workers leaving through the main doors in the front because they aren't of the social status and neither were they invited to the dinner. This is also breaking rules of etiquette because of the fact that Old Ekdal is wearing dark old clothes, "He is dressed in a shabby overcoat with a high collar, woollen gloves, and in his hand, a cane and a fur cap." (120). 

This is when Hjalmar pretends not to notice his father. In the end, Ibsen's argument regarding etiquette is that because one might show etiquette it does not mean that they have the best choices made for themselves, and their choices now may reflect later in life.