Death of Salesman Blog - 5.25.16

Within death of a salesman there is criticism of the basic economic system of capitalism and how that plays in part with Willy's destruction. Arthur Miller portrays several individuals like Charley as a businessman, who is definitely successful and somewhat wealthy as decent and giving to others. He's decent because he loans/donates money to the Loman family in order for them to keep their lives together. I believe that the treatment of American "business values" in this play can be viewed as both good and bad, just because from what we see on all sides of the spectrum – that being the Loman family, Charley's family, and even Howard as an individual, who I view as the worst of all "business values," even though he does fire Willy for his own good. In the grand scheme of things, I believe that Willy's failure to meet ends in a capitalist economy ultimately caused his destruction in the end, mainly because his values did not absolutely match up and coordinate with the modern "business values" in 1949.

Arthur Miller & The American Dream - 5.24.16

I believe that Arthur Miller is essentially trying to convey that the American Dream isn't all that, and is not very easily achieved by many. He is basically telling us that even though Willy was a salesman and tried his hardest, he still was not successful and had his faults. And in the end when he purposefully crashed his car into whatever it was, he was trying to get extra money from life insurance for his family because they were on the verge of being broke; which from looking at it was extremely ridiculous because even Linda, who I describe as very naive about the whole thing, didn't even try to stop him or give him help about his suicidal issues (the rubber hose nonsense as well) and always covered it up with niceness or acted like nothing was ever going on. So in the end of it all, I think that Miller was only trying to tell us that the American Dream is basically a sham unless you do it right, from looking at it there were several individuals like Charley, Bernard, and Howard (I believe that is his name) were all very successful and outgoing, which contrasted to the entire Loman family who had their mess ups but still tried and achieved some, to little, to nothing at all with the American Dream.

Death of a Salesman Blog 2 - 5.19.16

I do and do not think that Biff and Happy have realistic plans, goals and dreams. I think that these goals are somewhat farfetched, even though they are technically somewhat realistic. I do not think that Biff is going to be able to get a loan in order to get himself a ranch because he would need a job to sustain that ranch and pay off the bills that come with it. However, I do think that Happy's dreams are somewhat attainable, because he is already working his way to the top as we assume that he is already an assistant manager of a store and he strives to be manager (it may be a higher position). I think my dreams/goals/plans are similar to Happy and Biff's because I too want a path of success where I can rise through the chain of business like Happy (although not necessarily business, but potentially journalism) and hopefully be able to attain loans for necessary things like housing, like Biff. Happy describes Biff as an idealist, and I agree. An idealist is someone who basically strives for perfection and is typically naive, and out of touch with reality. I think that Biff could be described as this because Biff is someone who strives for something that is farther than what he can reach. For instance, thinking that he can get a loan for $8,000 from someone he hasn't seen in years just so he can live on a ranch.

Death of a Salesman Blog 1 - 5.18.16

What are some ways parents can disappoint their children? What are some ways children can disappoint their parents? Is there ever a time children should lie for their parents or vice versa?

There are plenty of ways that parents and children can both disappoint one another, and there are for sure moments where children should lie to their parents, or vice versa. Parents can disappoint their children by not allowing them to do certain things, like go out to parties, drive around with friends, or even something as simple as not having any money to give them to do certain activities. This has happened to me personally, but there is typically a good reason behind it, and that reason is usually to protect the innocence of the child or just flat out let them know that there is no extra money to go around for extra stuff. Children can disappoint their parents by disobeying them. Children do this by sneaking out, yelling at parents, or not following the basic rules of the household. From what I recall, I don't believe that I've ever disappointed my parents, unless it was that one minor time where I wasn't home by my curfew. I believe that parents and children should be able to lie to each other in order to protect the other's feelings, innocence, and to not make the other worry about their well-being. There is no set reason to actually lie to each other as "honesty is the best policy." However, if you think of parents as the government of the United States and children as the citizens, it is better to have them not know some stuff that goes on around the world and to cover it up, or just not reveal it at all in order to protect individuals from panic and so on.

Introduction - 5.5.16

In Margaret Drabble's The American Scholar published an excerpt with the claim that, "Our desire to conform is greater than our respect for objective facts." Drabble's statement and assertion about conformity can be validated in several ways. In simpler words, Drabble is essentially saying that human beings ignore ethics and morals just so they can conform to society and fit in. From this, we can explore the various ways that people in modern society attempt to conform, such as, bullying, peer pressure, and even cheating in school in order to make it to the top of their class.

Socratic Seminar WITD - 4.29.16

The Bundrens must endure a number of obstacles on their way to Jefferson. To what extent are the elements against them, and to what extent do they sabotage themselves?

OBSTACLES:
• The bridge.
• The river.
- The river and the bridge go part in part with one another as the bridge is basically destroyed by the river, and even if the family attempts to cross, they would be unable to because it is flooded.
• The fire.
- "soundless explosion as the whole loft of the barn takes fire at once, as though it had been stuffed with powder" (219)
• Money. (Goes in part with traveling, as they cannot afford a pack of mules)
• A way to travel. (Horse, mules)
- Anse has to sell stuff, use funds for his teeth, and use some of Cash's money in order to get mules to travel to Jefferson.
• Insanity. (Darl)
- "And I saw something Dewey Dell told me not to tell nobody" (215)

The elements are against this family because they honestly are not that smart. They sabotage themselves by making idiotic moves in order to try to cross the river, and then they all are ignorant to the fact that Addie smells and going to town for other reasons than her death is just ridiculous. Then again, they also forgot a shovel, which makes it even more evident that they were careless about playing out her death and the burial of her coffin.

In the end of it all, was Faulkner really trying to say that Anse marrying a new woman makes women seem as a replaceable object in everyday life, or was it just by incident that it came out this way?

As I Lay Dying Blog V - 4.25.16

How do you respond to the final line of the novel? Why end the novel this way?

     The novel of As I Lay Dying, by William Faulkner was troubling to myself as a reader at times, but there was definitely more unexpected than the end of the novel in itself. The last sentence just (most likely) shellshocked every single reader that I know of; it was so unexpected that it was in a way, almost good. You are probably wondering what the ending of the novel is… Here it is, “‘Meet Mrs. Bundren,’ he says.” (Faulkner 261) At the same time from liking the end, I feel like it was all just so sudden and thrown together. I felt that there was this journey from around page 48 to almost the end to bury Addie, but that journey turned into a journey for several other things. Like teeth, a gramophone, and an abortion. Never once did I think that Anse was going to get himself a new woman to replace Addie; although, looking back on it, I can see some subtle hints that can foreshadow this event. It was kind crazy to see that this entire family goes on a journey where they get in extreme amounts of trouble, and even at one point goes backwards. (not exactly backwards, but in the wrong direction in order to get to somewhere else) The only reason I actually liked the ending that Faulkner gave us, the readers, is because it was completely unexpected unless you are a literary guru who can see that he was foreshadowing some of it all along. Personally, I believe that William Faulkner ends this novel the way he does just to show that women only serve very little, unless it is with “household purposes” like having children, cooking, or just being a wife in general. We even see that Anse goes to get this wife before Addie is even buried. Which ultimately shows that wives and women can be replaced easily with another as apparently they add very little to someone else’s life. But in the end, we see that Addie has fulfilled her life as she had once said she would, by having children and being alive, she would be ready to die. I personally think that Faulkner did a great job writing this novel, and he does a great job by hooking the reader with his writing by ending the novel the way he did.