Literature Analysis

Literature Analysis on "The Sun Also Rises"

1. Jake Barnes and his friends live in the contreversial, self-indulgent world of post-World War I Paris. There, they occasionally work, but spend most of their time partying, drinking, and arguing. From Jake’s perspective, we meet the cast of characters that populates his story: the most important among them are Robert Cohn who is down-on-his-luck, a Princeton grad and unsuccessful writer. We are also introduced to Lady Brett Ashley, an exciting, beautiful, and unpredictable British divorcee.  Although Jake and Brett are actually in love, they aren’t together, presumably because a mysterious war wound has rendered Jake impotent. Cohn falls in love with Brett as well and, despite the fact that she’s not terribly impressed with him, she secretly goes on a trip with him to San Sebastian. Cohn is smitten, truly, madly, deeply in love. Unfortunately for Cohn (and for everyone, for that matter), Brett is engaged to a wealthy, charming, and drunkard man named Mike. Jake’s other friend Bill returns to Paris from a trip and a plan is derived, everyone agrees to go to Spain for some fishing and the running of the bulls in Pamplona. On their fishing trip, Bill and Jake have a splendid time with each other, but the relaxation quickly comes to an end. They return to civilization and meet up with Brett, Mike, and Cohn in Pamplona for a weeklong activities of bullfights, alcohol, and high drama. Jake has a true passion for bullfighting, but everyone else is simply there to have a good time. Brett begins a rather scandalous affair with a young bull-fighter, Pedro Romero. Jake feels terrible for many reasons one being the fear that he has corrupted Romero in some way by introducing him to Brett. Cohn’s infatuation with Brett leads to arguments with everyone and, finally, he beats the unfortunate Romero to a bloody pulp. As the fiesta winds down, everyone leaves Pamplona in various states of anxiety, depression and frustration. Jake heads to San Sebastian, where he intends to be alone for a while. Unfortunately, desperate telegrams from Brett arrive immediately. He goes to her in Madrid, where she is alone, having sent Romero away. For the first time, we see Brett truly vulnerable, afraid, and guilty. The future looks just as bad, Jake and Brett agree again that, even though they love each other, they can’t be together.

2. The main theme I recognized in the novel was that of love. This is the best theme that i could find because of Brett. Everyone is so infatuated with her and multiple people "fall in love" with her. Yes, love is corrupted in the novel and usually triggered with the idea of sex behind it, but although this is so I still feel as if the whole them revolves around love because even the environment is romanticized; it's in Paris.

3. The tone of the novel is sort of somber, and detached from reality.  

Examples of this are through these three quotes:

•"I mistrust all frank and simple people, especially when their stories hold together"

•"I was a little drunk. Not drunk in any positive sense but just enough to be careless."

•"'Listen, Jake,' he leaned forward on the bar. "Don’t you ever get the feeling that all your life is going by and you’re not taking advantage of it? Do you realize you’ve lived nearly half the time you have to live already?"

All of these examples show how the author has an odd kind of negative outlook on life, which makes him tone almost depressing.

4. Literary elements that portrayed the tone and theme were not very hard to spot through out the novel.  The symbols were the first thing that i recognized with in the novel, one being the bull fighting. The fighting of the bulls symbolized that some kind of drama was going to show up with Jake and his friends, whether it be a casual argument or a controversy about Brett. Another two literary techniques I saw in the novel that led me into what the authors tone was through diction and syntax.  Hemingway would right with very sophisticated language with a lot of detail and he would make very wise, but somewhat whimsical statements. For example, "Caffeine puts a man on his horse and a woman in his grave." The structure of the sentences were kind of condensed which also led to the depressing or conservative tone. Another literary technique that I could identify was that the author used a lot of comparison within his writing, especially those that portray women as almost scandalous. "And with them was Brett. I was very angry. Somehow they always made me angry. I know they are supposed to be amusing, and you should be tolerant, but I wanted to swing on one, any one, anything to shatter that superior, simpering composure."  The last literary technique I saw with the novel is the allusions that are seen such as the references to greek mythology.

Tools That Change The Way We Think

"Back in 2004, I asked [Google founders] Page and Brin what they saw as the future of Google search. 'It will be included in people's brains,' said Page. 'When you think about something and don't really know much about it, you will automatically get information.'

'That's true,' said Brin. 'Ultimately I view Google as a way to augment your brain with the knowledge of the world. Right now you go into your computer and type a phrase, but you can imagine that it could be easier in the future, that you can have just devices you talk into, or you can have computers that pay attention to what's going on around them and suggest useful information.'

'Somebody introduces themselves to you, and your watch goes to your web page,' said Page. 'Or if you met this person two years ago, this is what they said to you... Eventually you'll have the implant, where if you think about a fact, it will just tell you the answer."

In response internet use of media and other technological advances have changed my thinking tremendously in many different ways. I rely heavily on the internet for everything including social media, homework, and entertainment. Does this mean it has changed my thinking? I think so. The fact that a computer generates a lot of thinking for me makes thinking about thinking, well, difficult.
I feel as if Google and other search engines have taken over our thinking in a sense. This idea of "the filter bubble" is a prime example of this. As well as filtering our information google has also led it to be easier to not really research on our own, but to rely on "keywords" and "specific examples" to research itself. This has influenced my thinking, in part, by making my mind a little more lazy than generations before. Smart phones were non-existent "back in the day" and a lot of people had to physically open a book to get the information they needed to acquire. This is what makes this new generation so different, our thoughts and dependencies all rely on the use of the internet.
Social media on the internet also has a huge impact on my thinking and i'm sure it does to many others as well. Sites such as Facebook and Twitter and even blog sites are constantly influencing our thought process. When we read everyone else's thoughts, online, our thoughts begin to consist of their thoughts, so it makes the idea of thinking about our own thoughts very difficult. This is not to be confuse with the idea that people are solely influenced by the internet, although by the way that teenagers use the internet these days what they say and do, is clearly affected, in a small part, by social media.
The internet not only influences the minds of this generation it also occupies a lot of our time, sometimes it takes away from time in which we should be focussing on more important things. I know from personal experience that Facebook takes me away from my homework all the time and it gets me to thinking is really worth it? Social media takes away from my priorities and I honestly feel that it affects my thinking in a negative way as well. Although Facebook, Twitter and all the other social sites do connect many friends, in the end the time we use dwelling over other peoples problems could be used to think about solutions to our own issues.
The internet has so many advances that we should all be very thankful for in our time, but we truly don't know if it's for the best. In the past ten years technology has been outrageous, in sense that the social world is magnificent. Everyone enjoys the internet and really who in the right mind wouldn't? Unless they really looked into what is going on. I'm not saying the internet is taking over the world, but I am saying it has a large impact on all of our minds and whether its a good or bad impact is really for you to decide.

In Search of

Eli Pariser: Beware online "filter bubbles" | Video on TED.com

   Filter Bubbles? I learned exactly what a filter bubble was from this video because before this I wasn't to sure there was even a such thing. I also learned that things are being filtered out of my reach everyday due to some "algorithm" that some one else wrote that decides what I like and don't like, or more technically what I will be more prone to look at. The rest is all just filtered, which is kind of off putting. This information makes me think a lot differently about my online searches, or Facebook. How does this filter really know me? It just knows what I click on and not what I may truly be interested in that now I am potentially missing out on. It makes me want to click on anything i might even be remotely interested in so that I will have a bigger filter bubble with more ideas. Which is absurd to have to do.

   Having this said my search in the post "Who was Shakespeare" needs to be altered.  To better vary my information I'm going to use different search engines and double check the information I already have. Hopefully by doing this my details on Shakespeare won't be filtered like the rest of the information on the internet!

Notes on Hamlet

  Hamlet has evolved significantly in my head and I think its partially due in part to the main soliloquy that we had to master, "To be, or not to be...".  This really put me through a lot of strenuous time consuming grief!  Now that it is mastered I feel that I am more intrigued with actually understanding what Shakespeare is meaning in all of his lines, instead of just simply reading them with no interpretation.
  Character's such as Hamlet have truly changed in my mind because he is no longer some weird guy with a lot of issues.  I feel for Hamlet as the play goes on because he allows the reading in on more and more insight of his personal thoughts.  A character that is complex makes me more willing to try and "crack their code, I get excited when I finally decide on what I think Hamlet means.  The ghost has also evolved in my mind.  The ghost was confusing in the beginning, but as the acts go on I see that he has a more complex meaning to it.  I feel as if the ghost is also an insight into Hamlet's mind in some way because he is no ordinary ghost that just comes and goes as it pleases.  Having this said I feel as if Hamlet's struggles have peaked and are going to begin to come together for him.  I feel as if Hamlet will finally get it right in the next few scenes and ease his mind in a the best way possible.

Who was Shakespeare?

  To me Shakespeare is some beyond human figure who is an amazing writer.  Ever since I was little Shakespeare just seemed so godly by the way people described him and then when I read his work for the first time (back in the day) I was sure he was not of this planet. As I moved higher into my education I realize the significants of Shakespeare and his work.  But still we all have that lingering question who is Shakespeare really? Who is this guy beyond just his writing, and to be honest it is very hard to pin point facts about him.
  According to some articles Shakespeare Shakespeare was a man from the small, country town of Stratford. Many people, however, reject the conventional view of his existence, and argue that Shakespeare was the pen name for Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, and that the Earl of Oxford had to conceal his authorship for social and political reasons.  Shakespeare's works contain a vast amount of knowledge, knowledge that the Stratford man could scarcely have acquired. Shakespeare knew the Greek and Roman classics; his works refer to the tragedies of Sophocles, the dialogues of Plato, and many other ancient classics. Shakespeare also had a firm grasp of politics. Shakespeare had a deep knowledge of legal matters, not just an intuitive understanding of the law, but a knowledge of legal details and specifics. These Examples almost complete deny the fact that Shakespeare was merely not Shakespeare.  He was an amazing, poetic, play writer who will go down in history for his work.
  My thoughts on Shakespeare have greatly changed especially this year, but I still do not believe the fact that there is no Shakespeare. I feel as if it is just some people flirting with the possible idea of it and some people caught on and the idea blew up!  I feel now with the interesting background and the better understanding of Shakespeare I feel more intrigued to truly look into his work and interpret it on a whole new level.


http://www.ljhammond.com/essays/shak1.htm


http://shakespeare.about.com/od/shakespearebasics/tp/Who_Was_Shakespeare.htm

"To Facebook, Or Not to Facebook?..."

   Facebook is fun, exciting, and outrageously easy; so what person in the right mind wouldn't love it?  When I first found Facebook I thought it was the coolest think since Myspace.  Contacting friends and sharing your ideas was so easy and at the click of a button I was able to do exactly what I wanted, no questions asked.  It is so simple and in our society, that is what most people cherish about Facebook, the simplicity.
   I personally didn't get a Facebook until I was fifteen years old and I fell in love. I have been working with computers my whole life so when this whole ordeal came about I knew first hand how to maneuver it, even the privacy settings.  It is really disheartening how Facebook refuses to recognize the privacy issues it have for children under the age of seventeen.  I feel if it has been seen as a probably a big corporation like Facebook should shift to fit it's users needs and desires, but according to the NY Times article this is not so.    Even as someone who is computer savvy I still did not know some of the things it was describing in the article, which is unsettling.  Being a new customer of the Iphone it is also very weird to think that everything I do or post is potentially posting my exact location, unless I make the correct changes.  For some one who does not know this is so vulnerable, children who are unaware are potential to predators stalking there every move.
  While, yes, I admit to being a Facebook addict at the same time I wish there were liable changes that we could see in the privacy issue.  Facebook is fun and it's great to keep in touch with family and old friends, but in the hands of the wrong person things could go wrong, fast.  I believe some things should change with in Facebook to ensure its' users protection.

"Don't be Hamlet"

    "To be, or not to be, that is the question, " in the soliloquy delivered by Hamlet, the reader is opened up to the inner thoughts of the main character.  Throughout the play you get little pieces of his true thoughts and emotions, but in this soliloquy he let's the audience in on something he is so troubled with.  Should he kill himself? Should he seek revenge? What is the best solution in the situation Hamlet is encountering? The fight in Hamlet's own mind to literally choose life or death is the true dilemma of the entire soliloquy. It is seen within the speech that he ponders on the fact of suicide and I think the idea is ridiculous.
   The fact of the matter is that Hamlet is completely depressed, but suicide is not the way to solve anything.  Hamlet states, "Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;" Meaning his conscience is almost literally "eating him alive" making him think things that are irrational, due to the series of unfortunate events he has recently been through. Suicide is not the answer though; it never is. He reflects upon his religious ideas and knows that it is a sin to act upon these thoughts, but life is so rough he cannot decide his own fate. Hamlet debates back and forth in his own mind, pondering life and death, depression and revenge, and he cannot come to a certain verdict. "To grunt and sweat under a weary life, but that the dread of something after death," He is uncertain of what follows death, and wonders if his struggles are worth the pain.  Retiring to the unknown scares Hamlet and I feel his overall thoughts will be altered due to the immense uncertainty of what would be in store for him if he did in fact commit the "dreadful" act.
   With my own regards to life and it's importance (no matter how hard it may be sometimes) I feel that Hamlet should not commit suicide.  The act of committing suicide is more cowardly than not avenging his father's death at all.  He is less of a man by killing himself, then he would be if he just sat around for the rest of his life crying.  The debate he has with himself is understandable because of his depression, but his decision in the end will prove how courageous of a Prince he really is.  It will prove his "nobility" in the eyes of his people, and over all it will prove to himself that he is a stronger man than he originally thought he could be.
   Overall the soliloquy is an in depth analyzation of Hamlet's depression and within the speech he is trying to decide if his life is worth living anymore. "To exist, or to not exist," is the literal definition of the first line of spoken by Hamlet revealing his struggles and thoughts.  Is killing himself going to fix everything? Or is the afterlife to unknown to be risked?  Hamlet ponders upon these ideas over and over in his head, only to still come to uncertain conclusion, no closer to a real conclusion than he had when he started.  Suicide is not the answer by any means. Courage is found in how a person reacts to certain   situations at certain times, and while Hamlet does questions his existence, it also seems to me that he will reveal his true persona and make the right decision in the end. That is Life.


Hamlet's Soliloquy:


"To be, or not to be: that is the question:

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action. - Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember'd."