Blood Wedding #3

Readers are attracted to moments of intensity in a writer's work. By what means and with what effect have writers in your study offered heightened emotional moments designed to arrest the reader's attention?

Blood Wedding

Blood Wedding offers minimal heightened emotional moments but the scarcity of these moments makes each one that does happen even more important. This is first evident when the Mother explains her losses to give readers and listeners a possible emotional connection and / or sympathy towards that character.

MOTHER: Anything that can cut into a man's body! A beautiful man, with life like a flower in his mouth, who goes out to the vineyards or to his own olive groves, because they are his, inherited...

BRIDEGROOM: (Lowering his head) Mother, be quiet!

MOTHER: ... and that man does not return. Or if he does, it's only to have a palm placed over him or a dish of rock salt, so his body won't float. I don't know how you dare to carry a knife on you! Or why I allow this serpent inside the cupboard!

BRIDEGROOM: Haven't you said enough?

MOTHER: If I lived a hundred years, I would talk of nothing else! First your father. To me he smelled like carnations, and I enjoyed him only three short years. Then your brother. Is it fair? How can it be that something as small as a pistol or a knife can destroy a man who is like a bull?

The Wild Duck

The Wild Duck uses a lot more heightened emotional moments to show the reader the strong connections between Hjalmar and his daughter, Hedvig, and the weak connection between Gregers and his father, Mr Werle.

(Hjalmar Ekdal, wearing an overcoat and a gray felt hat, enters from the right.)

GINA (dropping her sewing and getting up): Ah, Hjalmar, here you are!

HEDVIG (jumping up at the same time): At last you're home, Daddy!

Blood Wedding #2

Narrative Structure

How has the plot been constructed?

It's been constructed through the use of actors. Plot being it's set after the mother has been widowed and one son murdered the other son to get married to a woman who was once engaged with a man from the family that killed both her husband and other son.

Are their parts?

Yes there are 3 acts and altogether there are 7 scenes, each telling the next part of the plot.

Is the plot circular?

It is not a circular plot, but I sense something bad is going to happen to the mother that'll make her experience sadness again, so circular in the sense of mentality.

Subplots?

Explanation of the bridegrooms wife's past engagements and history of the mother's losses of her husband and son.

How important/effective is the ending?

I haven't got to the ending at this point yet, but as in all tragedies, the ending is most of the time the most important part of the story/plot.

Has everything been revealed by the end or are there unanswered questions?

I am unable to answer this question effectively but an unanswered question I have now is what happened between Leonardo and the Wife to make them so madly in love with each other yet somehow ended up apart.

What period of time has been covered?

Not much, just a couple days and several hours after the wedding.

Is time important?

Not necessarily, but Leonardo's timing to come and take away the Wife during the wedding is important because it sparked all these events.

Blood Wedding #1

Stylistic Techniques

The wife and mother-in-law do a duet in poem form about a horse that doesn't want to drink water despite being thirsty.

Figurative Language

GIRL: Oh, what stockings! Women dream of such stockings! Look" a swallow here(she points to her ankle), a boat here (she points to her calf), and here (she points to her thigh) a rose!

Imagery

MOTHER: I wish that no one knew either the one who's alive or the one who's dead. I wish they were like two thistles that would prick any wagging tongue that touched them.

MOTHER: If I lived a hundred years, I would talk of nothing else! First, your father. To me he smelled like carnations, and I enjoyed him only three short years. Then your brother. Is it fair? How can it be that something as small as a pistol or a knife can destroy a man who is like a bull? I'll never be quiet. The months go by, and the desperation stings my eyes and the very tips of my hair!

Additional Journal

What I'm Tracking: Tracking how the plays are portraying society at the time and seeing if some of the portrayals still hold true to today.

The Wild Duck is portraying man as a being who believes strongly in their own abilities. That the common man is ashamed to take the fruits of others labors for granted. Hjalmar hates the prospect and is ashamed that his life has been built upon the charity of Mr. Werle. This still holds somewhat true to today's world, most people want to reap what they sow, but there are an increasing number of cheaters, people who live off of social welfare (not including the people who actually need it), and big bankers.

Oedipus portrays man as a being who tries to do good but in the end does evil. Today, some examples are people who seek power to help the people but get corrupted in the process like some politicians. An underlining meaning could also be that those who do not seek power are the best suited to withhold it.

The Wild Duck #4

"What is drama but life with the dull bits cut out?" To what extent do you find this statement applicable in at least two plays you have studied?

In The Wild Duck, we find this statement mostly applicable. The story starts off at Mr. Werle's house, a party is being celebrated for his sons return. Immediately the entrance of Hjalmar sparks off friction between the Edkar and the Werle family. We also see that Mr. Werle's son, Gregers, is already accusing his father that he is just using him. No boring stuff there. From that point a majority of the play is set in Hjalmars apartment where the play goes very briefly about the daily lives of the Edkars but drama follows behind shortly as Gregers moves in a room the Edkars had out for rent, causing even more friction between the two families. This place is also where Hjalmar finds out Hedvig might not be his daughter.

In Oedipus, it is somewhat more apparent. Introduces a horrid prophecy. Tells of how Oedipus unknowingly kills his own father, which I'd say is not a dull part. His wife/mother kills herself, and Oedipus gouges out his own eyes. I'd call that drama with the dull parts cut out, literally.

The Wild Duck #3

"Visual action can be as important on the stage as speech." How far do you agree with this claim? In your answer you should refer to two or three plays you have studied.

Visual action is very important, as important, as speech. Without it, we could never fully scope the amount of emotion a character is going through. For example, when Oedipus finds out he married his mother and killed his father he "Rushed through the doors with a great cry" (232).

This action shows us the amount of pain and shame he is in, as oppose to him just screaming.

In The Wild Duck, I feel as though it isn't important currently where we are in the book. But some notable actions are when Hjalmar avoids his father, Old Edkar, when his father had come by the Werle house to make copies. This indicates that Hjalmar is ashamed to be dining at a house whose owner destroyed his fathers reputation and doesn't want his father to see even though Edkar already knew Hjalmar was supposed to be there.

The Wild Duck #2

A poem written by one of the characters

Dang Rich People by Hjalmar

They killed my father

Not really, but he might as well been dead

Sitting there drinking and smoking

Like a giraffe in quicksand

Reconciliation is not enough

I sit with my flute and only my flute

My family observes,

Absorbing me

No treats for you

I forgot,

While sulking in the shadows of their lives,

Dang Rich People