NRJ#2: Idealism

In the novel, Never Let Me Go, by Kazuo Ishiguro, I believe a large role was put on idealism. After looking over the book a second time, the students at Hailsham were in theory, perfect. They did as they were told, they were smart, creative, healthy, normal children, and on rare occasions acted out, but society did not pay any attention to the fact they were “alive.” Yet, once receiving a letter they would soon give up their lives for strangers, whom they’d never meet.

         "I saw a new world coming rapidly. More scientific, efficient, yes. More cures for the old sicknesses. Very good. But a harsh, cruel, world. And I saw a little girl, her eyes tightly closed, holding to her breast the old kind world, one that she knew in her heart could not remain, and she was holding it and pleading, never to let her go." (72) An idealistic world, with false hope and no love for the people willing to be the ones to save it.

         Ishiguro’s use of idealism wasn’t stated entirely, but throughout the book you notice that these children are what society wants. Yet the people that would receive the donations did not think about the clones, did not want to believe they existed, but in the end they were the ones who lived. As a whole I believe that Ishiguro was trying to say there is no perfect world, and no matter what we do, or who you are things may not work out the way you plan for them to. 

NRJ #1 Free Will

The suggestion of free will, or lack of free will I should say, was a very important theme in Never Let Me Go, a novel by Kazuo Ishiguro. I believe that within the borders of Hailsham the idea of independence, although already somewhat known implausible, never left the minds of the students, and even of some of the guardians.  “If you’re going to have decent lives, then you’ve got to know and know properly…Your lives are set out for you. You’ll become adults, then before you’re old, before you’re even middle-aged, you’ll state to donate your vital organs. That’s what each of you was created to do…You were brought into this world for a purpose, and your futures, all of them, have been decided. (Ishiguro 81)

Even after realizing their fate was to donate their internal organs, and eventually die for what some believed to be a good cause, the Hailsham students continued their lives with as what they believed to be normal routines. If any of us had been given that fate I do believe our reactions would not have been the same, and at least an argument would have followed. For the majority though, they lived each day no different from the last, even when getting ready for their career positions no big fuss was made.

I believe that Ishiguro was trying to state that no matter who we are in life, no matter what we do, our lives are planned out in some way. The regular people, the clones, guardians, or donors, we all have a set future that we can’t change. Even with our knowledge of our predetermined fates, like the students of Hailsham, we should live our lives to the fullest and enjoy our days until the end. 

DRJ #3: Hamlet, Act 3

My initial reaction was relief. I was glad that Hamlet had gotten his answer about Claudius with the play, happy to see him call out his mother with harsh words, relieved to see him have the initiative to kill the mal behind the curtain, for at the time, could have been anyone. I was especially glad to see Hamlet come forward with his distrust for those who seemed closest to him, the trust is being revealed.

            I chose to analyze Gertrude because although Hamlet promised his father, (the late Hamlet) he would not hurt her in anyway, it seems that all he has done this scene is destroy her emotionally. But this scene especially shows her thoughts, feelings, and actions being controlled. Throughout the play the role of the woman has been put down, but in Act 3, Scene 4 it stands out; no matter how Hamlet had acted she had followed by him, and was so quick to see his point of view and accept it for truth.

            The theme that stood out for Act 3 was definitely revenge and forgiveness. Hamlet’s plans are finally beginning to unravel and at this point everybody involved can only watch. Since he had viewed the reaction of his uncle to the play revenge seems to be the only thing in mind. He brought out his dagger and planned to kill him, but only refused with the sight of Claudius praying. He was eager to kill whoever stood behind the curtain, and Gertrude was eager to forgive her son for whatever he may have done, and the murder she saw him commit. 

DRJ #2: Hamlet, Act 2

My initial reaction to Act 2 would have to be that Hamlet has gone mad with confusion. In scene 1 when Ophelia describes Hamlet when he came to her in her room, not taking his eyes off of her, finding his way out of the room without looking at a door, it made me believe that maybe he was deeply in love with her. Scene 2 made me believe that he had gone completely mad, due to his ramblings, and his answers to Polonius.

For this character analysis I am choosing to focus on Claudius. Although his part was not big in this Act, I did notice something that could lead to trouble in future acts. During scene 2, Voltemand and Cornelius return with news from the King of Norway.  Although the news is good, in terms of the attack against them they had been worried about has now been brought to the attention of the king and been shut down, the king still wishes to attack Poland, which sends the troops through Denmark. Claudius does not see an issues with this, yet is more concerned over Hamlet’s ill will. Since we have learned that he is the one who killed late Hamlet I don’t see his feelings of concern to be true, and am wondering what he is truly focused on learning.

For this scene I’d like to focus on the theme of deceit and deception. I noticed it throughout the play but in this scene it seemed to be bluntly placed. Characters Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, two of Hamlets close friends have been brought by the king and queen to spy on Hamlet, and although they do as told, when Hamlet asks why they have come, they do not try hard to keep their secret that they had been sent. They are true friends and cannot deceive Hamlet. Yet his mother and father were trying to deceit him and have been trying to find ways of spying and have conjured up a plan to see if he is mad with love or just mad. 

DRJ #1: Hamlet, Act I

My initial reaction to Hamlet, Act One was confusion. Although I am still not used to old English, I believe I am starting to make sense of it. As of now, this act has only reminded me of a soap opera, with all of the drama that has been portrayed. With the mother marrying her dead husband’s brother, whom we learn has killed the king, and now the son must get revenge on his father’s death. Hamlet is the son of the late great king Hamlet. I believe his fatal flaw is trusting his new “father,” or the new king and staying home instead of going back to his studies. Although he does fit Aristotle’s description of a tragic hero his greater good could kill him in the end. He is bothered by his uncle’s comments on why he is still mourning over his father’s death, and how there is no question to why his mother and uncle have already gotten married two months after his father’s death. The theme of life and death is brought up in this act a few times. With the death of the late king Hamlet, comes the life of Hamlet’s mother and uncle’s marriage, “With mirth in funeral and with dirge in marriage” (line 12) King Claudius, we learn killed his brother the late Hamlet, and probably plans to kill Hamlet as well.  I believe Shakespeare is trying to make a point that with every death a new life begins. Death is all around us and cannot be escaped by any. 

SSRJ #4 : MINOT

            Lust is defined as self-indulgent sexual desire or to have a craving, appetite, or great desire for. My initial reaction to this story was that this was not lust. In the beginning yes, towards the end it all seemed to blend together, not a desire, or craving but simply as routine as brushing your teeth in the morning. An element that stood out as particularly interesting was even though the story was about one girl, who remained nameless and faceless, she seemed to represent all girls in the age group, or all girls at her school. She was an upper class, well-educated girl given wonderful opportunities to excel, yet when a boy put his arm around her she forgot about everything around her except for that guy during that time. Being a teenager I relate to the situations that these people are placed in. Although I do not agree with the way these actions were played out, I have to say that I know people in these positions. It is sad to see it happen around you but it also seems like you cannot change it if you were to try. I do see that the amount of partners a person has, the reaction is very bias from gender. A man can have many and seem like a god, but when a girl has even a small amount they are seen as, “whores, or sluts,” and are talked down to or treated badly.

            The literary element that stood out to me the most was setting. Lust took place in a boarding school, filled with upper class, well educated, young men and women. It seems like the author was grouping the characters to let them represent all teens in these demographics.

            The only thing that did not make sense to me, was at the end when the girls were talking to the house mother, it almost seemed like she was saying their behavior was okay, or that they were to deliver babies. I’m wondering if she was suggesting women were only meant for procreation, or if anyone saw it this way? 

SSRJ #3: COLLETE

When I began to read “The Hand,” by Sidonie-Gabrielle Collete I was not surprised to see the amount of “love,” later to my knowledge lust, in the newly wed couple. This man that she has recently married, has already been married, but when she explains why she is in love, everything is artificial. It makes me think that their love was a physical relationship rushed into marriage. While laying next to her husband, already in two weeks she is beginning to find things wrong with him. His hand, described as monstrous and claw bearing, means nothing in the relationship other than a physical flaw. In 1924, there was no separation from a spouse except in death, wedding vows were truly spoken back then, so I believe she knew she was stuck at the end when she kissed his hand.

The literary elements that stood out to me were both; setting and symbolism. The setting, being in the newly weds bed set the story up as love at first sight. She was overwhelmed in the beginning, laying in bed with the love of her life, feeling kidnapped from the life she knew before. Now laying in the same bed does she see herself laying with a man she is already finding flaws with, during the course of a few weeks. His hand symbolizing a monstrous creature that now distracts her from his affection, or his features that she is only now becoming aware of, is already destroying her thoughts of him, which at first were of the best. 

The only thing this story could possibly make me think of was the movie, “What Happens In Vegas,” when the two married under the false pretences of love, and then could not get divorced and were forced to live with each other. The only questions I would have for this story would have to be, if the hand actually stood for being worried about the future or if it had an abusive meaning to it. His monster, crab-like, hands that were so big. Did he use them to hurt her, possibly control her?