Jane Eyre: Feminist Criticism Approach

I choose the feminist approach because Jane is effected by her gender greatly throughout the book.

A. Women in the lower class generally did housework like cleaning and cooking. They had pretty much no rights to speak of and were treated pretty cruel. Women in the middle class, like Jane, took work as governess often. They lived pretty comfortably generally, but still had upper class people looming over them. Upper class women didn't work. Really they just sat at home, took care of the kids, and bossed people around.

B. Jane Eyre, I think, was not influenced very significantly by the author's, Charlotte Bronte, gender. I believe some aspects may be proven related, like the main character being female, but otherwise not so much.

C. In the novel, there are many male-female relationships. Jane-Rochester being the most relevant. There relationship is definitely a source of conflict. Because they have a little affair and Rochester is already married, Jane must move away. And feel very conflicted towards Rochester. This is eventually resolved though, once Rochester's first wife dies and they can be married lawfully.

D. Jane doesn't face many work challenges in the novel. She gets a job at Lowoow immediately after she graduates. Then once she is done there she gets a pretty well paying job as a governess.

E. I feel like this book challenges the traditional view of women. Usually women like Jane are portrayed very beautifully. Charlotte Bronte changes it up and makes Jane very "plain."

E. The images of women in the story reflect patriarchal social forces very well. Rochester is in control of the entire house hold. He controls all the servants, locks up his wife in the attic, keeps it a secret, and manages to swoon the governess all at the same time!

F. I don't feel like any martial expectations are on the characters...Bertha Mason is the most violent part of the book and that's because she is mentally ill.

G. Jane has the behavioral expectation of respecting her class and others. Which usually means not speaking unless spoken to and simply being responsible for her duties. This really effects her when Rochester first begins talking to her at the house. She is kind of confused as to why he wants to talk to her so much and in the beginning doesn't say much.

H. Wow. If Jane had been male this would have been a whole different ball game. She never would have ended up at Lowend to start with, which means more Mrs. Reed. That would have just been bad. Next she couldn't have even been Adele's governess which is pretty much were the story starts from. Now if Rochester may have been female then...well...the story probs would have stopped there.

I. If a women is not married she was looked down upon in Jane's time period. So you have this plain looking governess and she's not married. Not really scoring any browning points there. It was also very significant if you were married. It could really change your social class. Jane, for example, was put in a whole new world leading up to her and Rochester's originally planed wedding. She was very happy, even if she didn't quite appreciate all the gifts, she appreciated the thought put into them and the fact that they were possible.

Nabokov's Essay: Question 8

May I just let you know how psyched I am to be on this question. The feeling I am about to have when I hit publish post won't be like any other. Well I lied. It will probably be like to the feeling I had last summer when I finally closed my Great Expectation notebook. I still flinch when I say that book title... I don't think that any of the books or essays had quite that effect this year. Out of everything that was required for this year I had to say that Nabokov's essay was my favorite. Mind you, this is my last thing I have to do to. Generally this is the point where someone would hate their life and that would cloud whatever impression this essay could have made on them. Oddly enough that is not what happened to me. I greatly enjoyed Nabokov's analogy's for one. The card castles having to be my favorite. Nabokov's idea's were just so well though out and put into such readable text you kind of had to like it. Calvino's ideas did not translate into writing nearly as well, in my opinion. Of course I don't want to exit out of this and reread the essay a thousand times, but I did take away a lot from it. I think I really did enjoy it...That's really weird to admit because I am so used to the mind set of summer reading=evil. I'm probably going to go into next year with the same mind set due to the fact I will inevitably procrastinate once again. I'll learn one day... So my reaction was a good one. I think reading and responding to the essay was very productive and I benefited from it in more ways than one. Bye:)

Nabokov's Essay: Question 7

I believe that Noabokov shows an immense deal of authority in this essay. His ideas and opinions carry so much weight that we are all crushed by his brilliance. He is also very apt to back all of them up, as well, leaving the dust he left from crushing us with is brilliance to be scattered in the wind. One idea that I am still a little shocked by (in a good way) is the following: "We should always remember that the work of art is invariably the creation of a new world, so that the first thing we should do is to study that new world as closely as possible, approaching it as something brand new, having no obvious connection with the worlds we already know. When this new world has been closely studied, then and only then let us examine its links with other worlds, other branches of knowledge." This idea was very shocking to me in that it's truth was so undeniable. I had never thought to go into a novel with such a mindset, yet one would think it is so obvious. Nabokov's authority is completely undeniable in this passage.

Nabokov, Vladimir Vladimirovich, and Fredson Bowers. "Good Readers and Good Writers."Lectures on Literature. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980. Print.

Nabokov's Essay: Question 6

Nabokov opens his essay with telling us what he believes his course is. "My course, among other things, is a kind of detective investigation of the mystery of literary

structures." He describe himself as a detective of literature. I think that this is a very apt way of opening this essay. He starts right off by telling his exact intent in the essay: to solve the mystery of literary structures. He does indeed tell us exactly what he intends to persuade us of through this essay, but that still leaves open for us to imagine exactly what that beholds. In order to find that out, we must read on. He gives us just enough for us to know what the essay is about, but leaves enough room to make us need to know more and adventure on. Nabokov's essay doesn't have a straight forward closing paragraph, but he does give us a sentence at the end of the last paragraph that says it all: "Then with a pleasure which is both sensual and intellectual we shall watch the artist build his castle of cards and watch the castle of cards become a castle of beautiful steel and glass." This last sentence wraps up the essay by leaving readers with a feeling of responsibility. We have the task of witnessing authors building their card castles and watching them become beautiful steel and glass castles.

Nabokov, Vladimir Vladimirovich, and Fredson Bowers. "Good Readers and Good Writers."Lectures on Literature. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980. Print.

Nabokov's Essay: Question 5

Nabokov's essay is dedicated to persuading us of how to be a good reader and a good writer. Therefore the structure is a persuasive one. Persuasive essays generally build up to a main point. I believe Nabokov's essay follows this certain persuasive structure. He begins with the simple instruction that we should pay attention to detail and "fondle" them. He also tells us one should always have an open-mind. "Nothing is more boring or more unfair to the author than starting to read, say, Madame Bovary, with the preconceived notion that it is a denunciation of the bourgeoisie." For those of you not cultured in French social class, for I am most certainly not, bourgeoisie means the middle class. He compares, also, the experience of writing and reading to a good hike up a mountain. Then he tells us that a good reader is a rereader. Next Nabokov visualizes the relationship of artistic balance between the reader's mind and the authors mind. Nabokov gives us many reasons throughout his essay. All of them slowly lead up to the main idea of the essay. This idea being that we should have a balance between being a reader and being a writer.

Nabokov, Vladimir Vladimirovich, and Fredson Bowers. "Good Readers and Good Writers."Lectures on Literature. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980. Print.

"bourgeoisie." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 20 Aug. 2011. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bourgeoisie>.

Nabokov's Essay: Question 4

The passage in this essay that caught my attention the most was following: "We should always remember that the work of art is invariably the creation of a new world, so that the first thing we should do is to study that new world as closely as possible, approaching it as something brand new, having no obvious connection with the worlds we already know. When this new world has been closely studied, then and only then let us examine its links with other worlds, other branches of knowledge." I have never thought of reading like this. I always go into reading already set with opinions. Those opinions are definitely not set in stone and are likely to change but I never realized that that can effect my entire experience. Here Nabokov is telling us we should approach a book as a brand new world. We should have no obvious connection with any other world as we read this brand new world either. Only once we have thoroughly researched this new world to our best abilities, then and only then may we consider the attachments it may have to other worlds.

Nabokov, Vladimir Vladimirovich, and Fredson Bowers. "Good Readers and Good Writers."Lectures on Literature. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980. Print.

Nabokov's Essay: Question 3

The biggest example of rhetorical devices I noticed was a very big metaphor: "The material of this world may be real enough (as far as reality goes) but does not exist at all as an accepted entirety: it is chaos, and to this chaos the author says "go!" allowing the world to flicker and to fuse. It is now recombined in its very atoms, not merely in its visible and superficial parts. The writer is the first man to mop it and to form the natural objects it contains. Those berries there are edible. That speckled creature that bolted across my path might be tamed. That lake between those trees will be called Lake Opal or, more artistically, Dishwater Lake. That mist is a mountain—and that mountain must be conquered. Up a trackless slope climbs the master artist, and at the top, on a windy ridge, whom do you think he meets? The panting and happy reader, and there they spontaneously embrace and are linked forever if the book lasts forever." In this passage, Nabokov is comparing the adventure of reading a novel to a hike up a mountain. It shows how as the author goes he ""mops up" the chaos and forms it into natural objects. Then once he reaches the top of the mountain, he compares the ending of a book to the writer and reader "spontaneously embracing." This apparently links them forever if the book lasts forever.

Nabokov, Vladimir Vladimirovich, and Fredson Bowers. "Good Readers and Good Writers."Lectures on Literature. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980. Print.

Nabokov's Essay: Question 2

Nabokov's tone in "Good Readers and Good Writers" is very loving. "In reading, one should notice and fondle details." What person tells you to fondle the details...? Someone that really loves writing and reading and wants you to, too. Nabokov obviously loves to read and write and felt inclined to research and produce his ideas and opinions in writing in order to share it with the rest of the world. He probably did this in hopes that it would become infectious and spread throughout the world. Nabokov's also has a very informative tone throughout the essay. A very loving informative tone, though. You can definitely feel that he really understands what it means to be a good reader, and that he has a passion for sharing this understanding with others. He informs us that we must have balance between being a good reader and being a good writer. He tells us that we must be like an artist, spontaneous and enthusiastic, but also judge like a scientist and have like patience. We must achieve this balance in order to reach our potential as a reader. He also informs us twice that we should not read with our heart, but with out mind, and more specifically our spine. "In order to bask in that magic a wise reader reads the book of genius not with his heart,not so much with his brain, but with his spine." I know I like basking in magic, so after reading this essay I definitely intend to read with my spine more often.

Nabokov, Vladimir Vladimirovich, and Fredson Bowers. "Good Readers and Good Writers."Lectures on Literature. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980. Print.

Nabokov's Essay: Question 1

The thesis in this essay was implicitly stated. Nabokov is telling us that in order to be a good reader, we mustn't have only one way of thinking. We must be able to be excited about a book, but we must also have patience. We must have balance. "We all have different temperaments, and I can tell you right now that the best temperament for a reader to have, or to develop, is a combination of the artistic and the scientific one. The enthusiastic artist alone is apt to be too subjective in his attitude towards a book, and so a scientific coolness of judgment will temper the intuitive heat. If, however, a would-be reader is utterly devoid of passion and patience—of an artist’s passion and a scientist’s patience—he will hardly enjoy great literature." This quote from Nabokov's essay summarizes his thesis for us pretty well. He is telling us we must have balance. The enthusiastic artist cannot thrive fully without the coolness of a scientists judgement. We must have differing temperaments in order to fully understand a good book.

Nabokov, Vladimir Vladimirovich, and Fredson Bowers. "Good Readers and Good Writers."Lectures on Literature. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980. Print.

Jane Eyre: Bertha Mason

Bertha Mason was particularly creepy in my opinion. She kind of got the bad end of this deal though. First off Edward Rochester's dad is a lazy head and decides he doesn't want to split up his will. He doesn't want to just leave his second son on the streets though and finds a rich family in Jamaica for him to marry into. He meets the Mason's and decides they'll do. Bertha is their daughter, whom Edward is to marry. She's pretty and looks like she'll make a suitable wife so they go through with it. She doesn't stay that way for long... soon she is a drunk and begins to loose her sanity like many others in her family, which was a minor detail the Mason's forgot to mention before they married off their daughter. JERKS. I admit, though, that Rochester's actions are not really very agreeable. He hides her in an attic for heavens sake. Is she crawling around on all fours? Yes... Is she maybe a little blood hungry? Possibly... Does she growl and laugh extremely creepily? Yup. Then why the heck is she isolated in this little room for 10 years!? She's not completely crazy though. She's till sane enough to put together that Jane and Rochester are to be married. She even makes a few attempts to clue in Jane that this situation maybe a little fishy. The biggy being she actually comes in Jane's room in the middle of the night and scares her half to death. Bertha was quite scary in my opinion and a bit demented. She was just enough creepy though to make you want to see what happens to her. She is not a person I would want to ever encounter that is for sure.

Jane Eyre: Helen Burns

Helen Burns is Jane's best friend at Lowend, at first. Jane is simply awed by how perfect of a person Helen is. Helen is constantly victimized by the teacher Miss Scatcherd. For even the simplest infraction, Miss Scatcherd calls Helena out. Helen has such a good attitude about it, it's verging creepy, though. She is thankful that someone is there to call her out. She tries to even see it from from Miss Scatcherd's view. Jane is a bit confused by Helen's perfection, but still in awe. Helen dies pretty quickly, although, in the middle of the night. Turns out she dies in Jane's arms. That's not creeeeeeeeeepy...at all. I think that Helen had a very big impact on Jane's life in a very short time. Helen teaches Jane a lot about loving your enemies and how to be a better person even when someone else is not. She slowly molded Jane into being a better person and showing her that she should always do her best even when circumstances seem poor. I would just like to say this blog was incredibly difficult to write due to the fact my name is Helena, not Helen. I think I put an 'a' on every single Helen I typed....

Wuthering Heights: Mrs. Dean

Mrs. Dean, or Nelly, was one character I could actually stand. She is the main narrator of Wuthering Heights. She is telling the story of Hearhcliff to the new renter of Thrushcross Grange, Mr. Lcokwood. Mr. Lockwood is then transferring the story to his diary. Mrs. Dean starts out as a maid at Wuthering Heights, serving Catherine Earnshaw originally. She is usually trying to get Heathcliff and Catherine out of trouble because they are so constantly wondering off and finding it. Then she has to move to Thrushcross Grange with Catherine when she marries Edgar Linton. She's not psyched about it at first but goes anyway and makes the best of it. Once Heathcliff returns, she is there helping him to revive his relationship with Catherine, even if she does not agree with it. She knows that they love each other even if they'll never be together. Once Catherine Earnshaw dies, she is left to pretty much parent Catherine's daughter, Catherine. That's not confusing or anything...Mrs. Dean is now always getting Catherine Linton out of trouble for she takes after her mother and has a knack for finding it. Eventually Catherine starts a correspondence of love letters to Linton Heathcliff. Mrs. Dean sees the problem in this and knows that Heathcliff with certainly try to use it to his advantage. So she ends it and burns all the letters for the good of Catherine. Eventually she is taken captive by Heathcliff in order to have Catherine and Linton married. She is barely fed for five days and when she is finally let out her first instinct is to see if Catherine is alright and then to check on her dying master.

Wuthering Heights: Heathcliff

If it's not already obvious, I do not particularly care for Heathcliff. The guy got on my nerves like crazy. I pity him in the most minute way simply because his childhood really sucked and he couldn't really do anything about it. People treated him badly just because of were he came from and that is wrong. The way he dealt with it though made me want to hit him in the head with baseball bats. I mean this guy was straight up evil! He leaves Wuthering Heights randomly for a few years and everybody is actually generally pretty happy. Catherine and Edgar get along and Hindley is a crazy drunkard. That's it though. Just a crazy drunkard. Not a crazy drunkard in a looooot of debt and hungry for blood. That is what he becomes when Heathcliff, out of the blue. shows back up at Wuthering Heights to turn everything upside down with this diabolical plan of his to become the master of the Heights and the Grange. First he begins messing with Hindley and then moves to prey on Catherine. She was content before he came around and now her and Edgar on edge and Isabella, Edgar's sister, is a bit out of sorts, too. She begins to fall in love with Heathcliff, and Heathcliff uses her in as a pawn to get what he wants. He marries her. Heathcliff knows he is confusing everybody and stirring up trouble, yet he is content to keep liven this daily life. Then Catherine dies because of Heathcliff and Edgar, and he becomes even more driven to take over everything. The man is crazy! He doesn't know when enough is enough! After this little mishap things quite down a while. Then Isabella dies, who has fled away from Heathcliff with their son, Linton. Isabella wishes Linton to live with Edgar but Heathcliff is his father and immediately takes the poor child and ignores his mothers wishes. Soon he is using Linton as a pawn, too. He makes him try to charm Catherine Linton (Catherine Earnshaw's daughter) into marrying him, and we can infer that he is punished severely when he does not do a sufficient job. Soon Heathcliff just locks the two up until they'll marry. Who locks people up to get them to marry each other?! Jerks. That's who.

Jane Eyre: Question 8

Jane Eyre reflects events in history of its time period pretty accurately, to some extent, I believe. One big event being how greatly orphans were neglected. In the very beginning it is a scene showing Jane finally having it with her cousin and defending herself at last. Because she is the little ole orphaned niece,aunt Mrs. Reed automatically takes her sons side without even asking for Jane's side. Her punishment is even more peculiar. They lock her in the red room. *duhduhduhduhhhhhh!* This is simply a room that is furnished in mostly red and the occasional white piece. We can infer that Jane has been locked in there before by the way she has to be forcibly dragged in the room. Not only is Jane locked up in the ominous red rooms because of the fact she is an orphan, but then she is sent to Lowend, a school for orphaned girls. She's pretty psyched about going to school until she figures out this place is worse than the Reeds house. Here, the girls are barely fed, barely clothed, and punished severely for the most minute mistakes. Uncool. In Jane Eyre Charlotte Bronte shows that her ideas of the responsibilities between servant-master are a little different. Jane, the governess, falls in love with Rochester, the master, who likewise falls for her. This was not typical of the time period. An event that probably influenced Bronte in writing this novel may have been suffering in like ways to Jane in her childhood.

Jane Eyre: Question 7

Charlotte Bronte uses suspense quite handily in Jane Eyre in order to keep readers wanting more. The creepy vampire-mental-wife in the attic I thought was a really good tool to keep people sucked in. For a while we had no idea what was up there. We just knew Jane kept hearing this creepy laugh in the attic that might have been Grace Poole. Next she's tending to Mr. Mason and keeps hearing this random growling,,,what's up with that? All I can say was I was thoroughly creeped out and the suspense definitely got to me. Bronte also used love to keep people engaged in the story. The fact that Jane receives no love in the beginning, well maybe very little of it but still, made me pretty disgruntled. I kept reading because I wanted to know how the heck someone can go on with little to no love to thrive on. Next Jane ends up at this horrid school for orphaned girls were this is like one teacher that ever shows any affection towards any of the girls. So Jane barely knows what love is at this point. Next she starts slowly falling in love with her master! Oooooo! A twist in the plot! Jane does know how to love! Of course it's to good to be true and it turns out he's hiding his other crazy wife in his attic. Will Jane ever know real love?!

Wuthering Heights: Question 8

Once again, I kinda missed the last page of the letter and am just now finding out there was eight questions, not six. That gives me four blogs i do not have to think of by myself though! Score! This novel reflects the history of this time period in how well it shows social class and how big of a say it had on just about every bodies life. Because Heathcliff is an or orphan taken in by Mr. Earnshaw, he is looked down on for pretty much the rest of his life, even after he mysteriously coms into money. Not only is he an orphan, but he is also described as a "gypsy" on multiple occasions. In that time period, gypsy's weren't exactly high class to say the least. Most people looked down on them simply because of their way of life. So Heathcliff has got a pretty bad combination going for himself right now. Because of this combination he's in a lower social class which over all dictates the rest of his life. Pretty much the whole world hates him, besides Mr. Earnshaw and Catherine, as a kid, Hindley treats him as a servant when Mr. Earnshaw dies, and then Catherine won't marry him. I think that Bronte definitely believes in the relationship of servant-master. The novel is mostly told from servants point of view so we see pretty well the type of relationship that's had. Emily Bronte was probably influenced by lots of things in writing Wuthering Heights. I think the idea of love was a big factor. Bronte kind of took this little idea that so many of us thrive on and contorted it to make it more her style, though.

Wuthering Heights: Question 7

Sooo I definitely missed that there was another page to the letter on the website and thought that there was only six questions for the novels. Well there's eight, of course you already know that though. Here goes though. In Wuthering Heights, Emily Bronte uses a few different techniques to engage readers and make them want to read on. One that she used was mystery. The entire novel, readers are always left to guess what's going to happen to next. I know that I had a tendency to wrong. Heathcliff is a constant mystery as well. First off, we have a very vague idea were he came from. They simply describe him as the dark-skinned gypsy boy from Liverpool. We just know he was starving and homeless and Mr. Earnshaw picked him up and took him home. Next, he disappears for a few years after he over hears Catherine saying it would degrade her to marry him. They never really explain were he goes off to, probably because no one but he knows. Readers are left to fill in the blanks with their own imagination. Another technique she used to suck people in and grab their attention was love. Everybody loves a good romance, just admit it, and Bronte offers an interesting one. Her view on love appears a little twisted in Wuthering Heights. First, she has Catherine, a sophisticated upper class lady, fall in love with Heathcliff, the feisty gypsy boy whose original whereabouts are never really confirmed. Next she doesn't even have them married. Nope. She goes all typical on us for a second and Catherine marries somebody of like class. It doesn't stay typical for long, though. Then Heathcliff returns from where ever the mans been and starts up his twisted relationship back up with the already married Catherine. A relationship I'm not even sure the two understand themselves.... Next Catherine just goes and dies! Will it ever end...

Calvino's Essay: Question 1

The thesis in this essay was particularly hard to find. That may be because I'm unexperienced in writing, but hey. I came to the conclusion, after much contemplation mind you, that the thesis was simple, we should read the classics. A thesis is suppose to be the idea that you are proving. Calvino's essay is devoted to giving us reasons as to why we should read the classics. This is what lead me to come to this conclusion. It is never explicitly stated, although. Therefore it is an implicit thesis. I really don't know how to type 200 more words about this. For realsies. I told you what the thesis was and I couldn't tell you were it was because it was implicit. Now I'm stuck here writing random jazz in order to get to 200 words. I really don't know if I'll get points off because really I answered all the questions. I simply could not think how in the world I was suppose to elaborate off of the answer I came up with... This answer is pretty straight forward: I tell you what the thesis is, where it is, and if it is explicit or implicit. I simply cannot think of anything else to say! Now I'm just a babbling baboon. That's from Harry Potter :) Professor Mcgonagall to be exact (: She's cool beans. Especially in the last one. Back to the thesis and the fact I cannot think of anything to write about it. Still cannot think of anything to write about it.....wow! Turns out I have about 250 words! Score :)

Calvino's Essay: Question 8

What was my reaction to Calvino's essay? I didn't really hate it with a deep never ending passion or anything, but I definitely did not love it with that same passion. Parts of it really got my attention and made me think about things I've never really thought about. The fact I was reading it last minute, and had to read it for English kinda put a downer on the situation. Anytime I am made to read something, I generally hate it.... That's my fault that it was last minute, yeah, but still it was like a huge rain could of procrastination was looming of me the entire time, taunting me with that lemonade shake-up I could be getting or the fair, that I could be at but have homework to do. In the summer.... bleh. So over all my reaction was not really the best one. It once again was not horrible or anything, just I'm sure other people have found more pleasure than myself in reading Calvino's essay. I'm not stupid, so I realize this reaction is completely emotional. The fact that I am letting the time, circumstances, and environment in which I am reading the essay effect my opinion of it bears absolutely no logic whatsoever. I realize that.

Calvino's Essay: Question 7

Calvino shows quite a bit of authority throughout this essay. I haven't exactly read many professionally written essays, but I can tell Calvino knows his stuff. First from his usage of reallyyyy big words. For example, banal and stultifying. Previous to reading this essay, I had never heard of those words, let alone used so fluently. For those wondering, banal means devoid of freshness or originality and stultifying means to make, or cause to disappear, foolish or ridiculous. His very impressive vocabulary was what first lead me to learn of his great authority. Next, was his innovativeness. Calvino writes in a completely new way to me. Never once have I read an essay that at the end tells you to pretty much to disregard everything the writer has just persuaded you towards. I'm still a little shocked from that. He slowly is building up this big point only to tell us all his reasoning has no bearing on the situation. You've got to be pretty authoritive to be able to pull a fast one like that. Another good show of his authority is how vast his knowledge of all the classics is. He talks about at least ten authors and is able to cite them all. You've reached a pretty high level when you're able to do that.

Calvino's Essay: Question 6

Calvino's methods are definitely not the norm. Instead of opening with some profound quote or idea he hops right in. "Let us begin by putting forward some definitions." I think this is a good way of opening because it doesn't even really give the reader a chance to think about putting it down. You're so intrigued that there was no opening to bore you, you continue on. Then he does not use the usual paragraph method, either. He simply gives a straight forward reason, used to persuade you that classics are worth your while, then follows with more in-depth explanations of the reason. I think this method is a short- and-sweet one, used in order to keep feeding you new things as to keep you entertained as long as possible. Calvino's conclusion is frankly quite unsettling. Instead of pulling all of his reasons together into one big nice picture, he simply befuddles us by telling us all his reasons don't even really matter. "...so that people do not believe that the classics must be read because they serve some purpose. The only reason that can be adduced in their favor is that reading the classics is always better than not reading them." I, myself, was quite shocked at this. This guy thinks of fourteen reasons as to why we should read the classics, but then ends it all with telling us we should not assume there is some purpose in reading the classics. It is simply always better to read them than to not.

Calvino's Essay: Question 5

This essay was uniquely organized in my opinion, because I have not seen very many essay structures in my time. I'm only fifteen so this is understandable. Instead of having a set opening paragraph, Calvino kind of goes right into it. He goes into it straight up with reason number one. Also, instead of just a few paragraphs, each with its own idea, he states a reason as to why we should read the classics and then writes a paragraph explaining each reason more in depth. Reasons four, five, and thirteen were even more unique because they didn't even follow with an explanation, just a flat out reason. This essay was also very different to me because, unlike the writing I was taught to use, this essay gives off reasons that slowly building up to his point in the closing paragraph. I was always taught the opposite. Start of with your big flashy main idea to catch the readers attention, then explain it throughout the essay. Another part of this essay structure was it was definitely a persuasive essay. The entire essay is devoted to persuading us as to why we should read the classics. It gives us fourteen well thought-out reasons.

Calvino's Essay: Question 4

Something that stood out to me in Calvino's essay was reason fourteen: 14. A classic is a work which persists as background noise even when a present that is totally incompatible with it holds sway. This stuck out to me because it shows Calvino is not telling us JUST to read the classics. He is showing us in this reason that the classics sometimes play the background music to more current books main show. This explains to us that classics are sometimes meant to just make a good foundation for us. A certain passage in the explanation of fourteen also stuck out to me: "All that can be done is for each one of us to invent our own ideal library of our classics; and I would say that one half of it should consist of books we have read and that have meant something for us, and the other half of books which we intend to read and which we suppose might mean something to us. We should also leave a space for surprises and chance discoveries." I like this passage because it's completely true. Especially the last part. We should always be expecting the unexpected. Another part of this essay I did enjoy was his language. It was somewhat sarcastic at times and I have a burning passion for sarcasm.

Calvino, Italo. "Why Read the Classics?" Why Read the Classics? London: Vintage, 2000. Print.

Calvino's Essay: Question 2

What is the authors tone? There are a lot of potential answers to this question. After reading this essay I am left with a very 'blunt' taste in my mouth. Calvino is very straightforward in this writing. He doesn't even really have an opening he just kind of gets right down to it. I personally like this. Openings can tend to be a bit drawn out and not really go anywhere which makes me want to just put it down and go get some frozen yogurt. The frozen yogurt really having nothing to do with the fact the opening wasn't to great, I just want some right now. If I could drive that would totally be happening right now. I also sensed a loooooot of persuasion coming from Calvino while reading the essay. Which is not to unexpected considering this is a persuasive essay. I'd be a little concerned if it lacked persuasion. I also felt a bit of an 'excitement' tone happening. This guy is pretty psyched about classics and giving us in depth reasons as to why we should pick one up and get totally lost in it this second. I'm not trying to be sassy about it or anything. That's just what I got after reading the essay.

Calvino's Essay: Question 3

What rhetorical devices were used in the essay? The most prominent by far was personification. Calvino talks about classics as if they were a person that we should befriend and get to know. Two of his reasons that I thought were good examples are 9. Classics are books which, the more we think we know them through hearsay, the more original, unexpected, and innovative we find them when we actually read them. and 11. 'Your' classic is a book to which you cannot remain indifferent, and which helps you define yourself in relation or even in opposition to. In reason nine, Calvino talks about classics as if they are friends of ours that can change over time. They get more original, unexpected, and innovative every time we see them and strike up a conversation, which I think is true. A really good book will always show you something new upon rereading it. Harry Potter for instance. Every time I reread one of the installments, I always find there is something I missed. In reason eleven, classics are described like a person that 'helps us define ourselves.' Classics are shown as people that help mold us into the people we are going to be, whether it is like to themselves or in opposition.

Calvino, Italo. "Why Read the Classics?" Why Read the Classics? London: Vintage, 2000. Print.

Wuthering Heights: My Reaction

Though I cannot say Wuthering Heights was necessarily enjoyable, I can say that it was much more livable than other possibilities that we shan't speak of at this point. I didn't want to burn the book...so that's a definite improvement. I found Heathcliff very irritating. Some people say that he was the hero of the novel, and frankly I just cannot see that. He was flat out evil... like if he was a modern day dude he'd be the evil scientist rubbing his hands together in that evil scientist-y way and cackling *Mwahahahahaha!* Evil scientists can be cool, but Heathcliff simply would not. Linton....that kid. Oh my gosh. I wanted to throw a brick at his sickly little head and call it a day. Catherine travels miles every night, in secret no less!, just to see his sorry self. What does he do? He's a jerk face and makes her feel miserable almost every time. Then, even after he tells her that loves her, he basically gives her up to his evil scientist dad in order to save himself. True love right there...that was sarcasm for the record. That's just about the falsest love I've ever heard of. Nelly is pretty much the only redeeming character of this novel. She seems to be the only one trying to make life an enjoyable existence for others, not just herself. As I said, I didn't want to burn the book, but still....

Jane Eyre: My Reaction

I am going to come right out and say the, most likely, pretty obvious by this point: I did not like this book. It creeped me out to be completely frank. Although it was a much more enjoyable experience then previous summer reading selections, I will probably never touch this novel again. The freaky-vampire-possessed-secret-wife in the attic part simply did not tickle me pink. I did enjoy it's strong message of not to judge a book by its cover. People do that way to much these days. We all do have that DNA strand...I wasn't lying. We are all stuck in this little box and cannot seem to find the courage to find a way out. It's infuriating at times. Jump out of the dang box, punch a hole, eat your way out, summon your unicorn friends to poke a hole, Accio chain saw! The possibilities are endless as to how to extricate yourselves from this little box of judgementalness! Moving on, I did enjoy the fact that Jane wasn't your typical beauty like every other heroine these days. She was a plain jane, ahahahaha how punny :)) This is what blogging does to me...the result so far has not been very good, as shown in the previous example of my humor currently.

Jane Eye: Question 6

Why do we still read Jane Eyre? If I was to be compleeeetely honest, I would have to say because it's on the reading list for Sophomore Honors English classes around the world...but because I am not being compleeeetely (yes 4 E's) honest I will not say that. I will say that Jane Eyre has a timeless message that will always be relevant. That message being things are not always what they appear to be, or do not judge a book by its cover. Take your pick on which version. There is just some stupid strand in everyone's DNA that eats away our abilities to have open minds. This DNA strand is represented in Jane Eyre. Jane being the book that everyone passes over because it's the bland grey hard-back that no one could ever fathom being interesting. Everyone that judged her before getting to know her being that pesky DNA strand. Jane is a very relevant character because everybody, at some point in their life, feels like somebody has simply passed over them without a second glance in order to get to the more 'promising' looking person, when in reality that 'promising' looking person is not all that interesting and you are just bursting with entertaining and interesting little traits. So to pull this somewhat odd blog together, we can all learn to be a little less judgmental and a little more open-minded from Jane Eyre.

Jane Eyre: Question 5

Jane Eyre reflects multiple examples of the history, behavior, and social issues of it's time period, which is about 1820-1850. One social issue it shows is how greatly orphaned children were neglected. Jane's situation was not all that uncommon. Many children who would become orphaned would live on the streets or were put in an orphanage or school in poor conditions in more ways than one. Another social issue was that it was accepted that Jane was treated in such a manor. It was ok to lock children in 'red room' and leave them there to faint of fright. A behavioral issue of this time period was how much social class meant to people. Blanche Ingram thought she was some hot-stuff and because of that it was ok to make fun of Jane, her class, and occupation basically right to her face. That would be a no-go these days. People still think pretty highly of themselves because of the money they have, though. The setting of this novel is around 1820-1850 and takes place in a few different places: Gateshead (the Reed's house), Lowend (Jane's school), Thornfield (Rochester's house), Moor House (the River's house), Morton, and Ferndean (Rochester's other house).

"History of Leake & Watts | Leake & Watts." Leake & Watts | Creating Strong Foundations for Children, Adults and Families. Naeyc, 2011. Web. 13 Aug. 2011. .

Jane Eyre: Question 4

The hero...hmmm....is it Mrs. Reed? No...John Reed! Probably not... maybe Adele? The hero in Jane Eyre....ooo! Jane Eyre? Got it :) Jane is definitely the protagonist of the novel. She is constantly running into antagonistic forces like poverty, hunger, and social class. Her heroic traits would include kindness, perseverance, courage, a really good moral compass, etc. Jane comes to some pretty tricky forks in the road throughout the novel and seems to always be able to pick the right route. Jane also has quite a few David-and-Goliath-esque moments. For example, she makes it through Lowend, the academy for orphaned girls that she attends from age 10-16. Their idea of an acceptable days meal was usually burned porridge, moldy bread, some cheese, and dirty water. Yum, right? She also must brave some serious temptation (Goliath!) when she discovers her fiancee, Rochester, secretly already has a wife. A half-crazed wife, yes. A wife no less. Due to her ridiculously straight moral compass, perseveres and makes the right decision. Jane represents the abstract idea of beauty. She may not be it on the outside, but she sure is model material on the inside. To bad few people take the time to actually get to know that.

Jane Eyre: Question 3

In my opinion, the biggest theme in Jane Eyre is not to judge a book by its cover. Jane's appearance is describe to be plain and not very eye-catching, like most typical heroines. The maid Abbot describes her to us: "Yes," responded Abbot, "if she were a nice, pretty child, one might compassionate her forlornness; but one really cannot care for such a little toad as that." So we can see that Jane's not to cute in most people's opinion. Because of that opinion, a lot of people judge her and don't get to know the real her, a deep, honest, and caring person hungry for knowledge. The same opinion is also made about Mr. Rochester. Even Jane at first concludes that he is not very handsome. She later decides that though he is not the social norm for handsome, he's just right for her. Mr. Rochester does not suffer the same as Jane though because of his large sums of money. The fact this theme is so prominent throughout Jane Eyre shows us that Charlotte Bronte understands very much that it is in human nature is to jump to conclusions. To not even open up and read the first page of the boring looking book.

Brontë, Charlotte, Fritz Eichenberg, and Bruce Rogers. Jane Eyre. New York: Random House, 1943. Print.

Jane Eyre: Question 2

The main conflict of Jane Eyre is that Jane falls in love with Mr. Rochester, her employer, but cannot act upon her feelings because of the difference in their social ranks. The cause of this is probably the death of her parents, leaving her to live as an orphan and lose virtually everything she ever had. So really the cause was unpreventable. One of the losses of this conflict is definitely happiness. It really depresses both Jane and Mr. Rochester that they can't be married (for the time being at least...). It also leads to Jane very nearly starving to death in order to get away from Thornfield (Mr. Rochester's house) and the temptation to give into being with Mr. Rochester. The gains of this conflict are very great. For one, she ends up at the house of her cousins that she didn't even know she had. She doesn't know they're her cousins at the time but eventually learns this. This is pretty big because there's always been a void in Jane's life due to the fact she's never really had a true family to call her own. So meeting the Rivers is a pretty big deal for Jane, and it wouldn't have happened if she would have married Mr. Rocherster. Because she meets the Rivers, she also ends up getting her inheritance from her long lost uncle, too. Another gain, a pretty minor one but a gain no less, is that Jane fled Thornfield before Bertha Mason, Mr. Rochester's crazed wife that he keeps in the attic, sets it ablaze. Jane might of died if she had been in the house because Bertha did it to kill her mainly. Living is always a good thing! The final gain I'm going to mention is the fact that Jane does end up with Mr. Rochester. If she would have married him the first time around, I doubt the marriage would have survived because its basis was lies. Years later, after Bertha has committed suicide in the fire, they encounter again and they can truly be happy together and know they have no secrets.

Jane Eyre: Question 1

Charlotte Bronte's fashion of writing in Jane Eyre reveals a great deal about her value's and attitude. For one it shows a large amount of mistreatment towards Jane. Particularly coming from Mrs. Reed, her aunt and adoptive guardian, and the ginormous hypocrite Mr. Brocklehurst. They were both constantly punishing Jane for simple mistakes and never simply allowing her to learn for herself. This gives us the impression that domestic mistreatment is probably a big problem in Bronte's eyes. Another value we can infer she has is one of love. Throughout the novel, it shows on multiple occasions Jane not just accepting an 'OK' love, but persevering until they got the type of love she knew she deserved. In the beginning, Jane knows that her situation isn't to normal and her treatment is not acceptable. So she says so. She flat out tells off Mrs. Reed in chapter four. It's some awesome sauce if I do say so myself. It doesn't really do much then because she's only ten years old at the time, but it does foreshadow the type of person Jane is to be. Another example is when Jane is about to marry Mr. Rochester and discovers at the alter that he's already married. Though his situation is unique and explained, she knows that it's still not acceptable. So she leaves in order to find something better for herself. The next example is when St. John wants to marry her because he believes she would fit the missionary wife role. She knows he doesn't really love her and is even in love with someone else. So she refuses, because she wants real true love for herself. All of this backs up that Bronte values real love. Marrying for love and only love. Jane Eyre is told from Jane Eyre's point of view so it's first person. It goes back and forth between Jane looking back on her life and where she is presently.

Wuthering Heights: Question 6

If you were to read Wuthering Heights in 1847, the year it came out, you would probably gather the same message as if you were to read it in 1900 or 1995 or 2011. The message being you can't always get what you want. This message will always be relevant because it is in human nature to covet what we cannot have. We are forever thinking about the things we do not have and conveniently overlooking that which we do. The characters in this novel are also quite timeless. Everybody can relate to at least one character, if not many. Heathcliff: The frequently wronged gypsy boy who is in love with the girl that will never marry him. Catherine Earnshaw: The little daddy's girl that's in love with the gypsy boy, but knows marrying him would put them both on the streets. Edgar: The rich boy that gets what he want, including the girl he wants. Hareton: The poor boy that must suffer the repercussions of his fathers mistakes. So basically all the characters are all so brilliantly portrayed by Bronte that they will always be relatable. There are so many themes in this book it's ridiculous. Revenge, love, family, suffering (physical and emotional), betrayal, forgiveness, etc. This book shows us one heck of a dysfunctional family. They suffer so much, making each other so miserable sometimes and so happy at others. Pretty much everybody betrays and wrongs everybody else. Yet in the end, they end up as a happy family. :))

Wuthering Heights: Question 5

This novel takes place from about 1750-early 1800's. It reflects very greatly the social issues of the time period. The whole book basically springs from the fact that Catherine and Heathcliff's social classes are to different and they can't be together. Social class is also the biggest factor in as to why Catherine wishes to marry Edgar instead of Heathcliff. She wishes to become "the greatest lady of the neighborhood" as she tells Nelly (Mrs. Dean). This book also reflects the behavioral issue of punishment in that time period. If you were to do something wrong during that time period, it was acceptable to be beaten for it. If that was to happen in the present, you could potentially go to jail for it. I feel this book symbolizes the twisted roller-coaster ride we choose to get on when we enter into the adventure of love. Catherine doesn't like Heathcliff. Now Catherine and Heathcliff are inseparable. Oh wait! Catherine's going to marry someone else! Here's another twist! Then Heathcliff decides he's going to come back and complicate things even further! Here's were the roller-coaster comes to that unexpected hault: Catherine dies, and Heathcliff is left without her on this horrible place we call earth.

Bronte, Emily. Wuthering Height. New York: Random House, 1943. Prints.

Wuthering Heights: Question 4

This question was particularly hard. There is not really a set in stone hero in this novel. The closest thing to it, in my opinion, would have to be Mrs. Dean, the maid. She is there throughout the entire novel guiding both Catherine's to right and away from wrong. She might have failed quite tremendously at times but the effort was always there. Mrs. Dean has the personality traits of kindness, caring, and obedience. She had a good moral compass and could generally tell right from wrong, even if her mistresses could not. She usually did what she was told, unless it would put her mistresses in danger. Mrs. Dean accomplishes, in the end, returning to Wuthering Heights with a happy Catherine, who ends up happily with Hareton. A bit anti-climactic, I know. She does eventually evade Heathcliff, by him dying, but evading him no less. Some think Heathcliff the hero of Wuthering Heights, but I perceived him more of the villain. He seemed to be the center of all conflict in the novel. People were constantly trying to fix the problems he was causing. He did have a screwed up childhood, but he seemed to be making more trouble than he had right to. A lot of abstract ideas can be associated with Mrs. Dean. One especially is kindness. She seemed to always be consoling somebody throughout the novel and to be kindly guiding them in the right direction. For instance, when she is held captive by Heathcliff towards the end, her first thought is not that she has barely had any food for 5 days, but of her mistress and her whereabouts and her master. She does not rush to the cupboard, but to her masters bedside. Another idea is courage. Mrs. Dean is put in a lot of sticky situations and perseveres through them all courageously.

Wuthering Heights: Question 3

The biggest theme in Wuthering Heights is revenge. Although it is a romance, Emily Bronte doesn't quite follow the rules. In order to have revenge upon his childhood tormenter, Hindley, Heathcliff begins scheming as to how he can take the Heights from him and become the master. Then because Edgar steals his Catherine from him, he commences a new plan to become the master of Edgar's manor as well. All this just to serve up some revenge to those who have wronged him. Another big theme in Wuthering Heights is that of love. It's hard to believe due to the fact that all the lovers in this novel seem to be constantly trying to make each other miserable. That's not entirely true. Mostly true...yes. But not quite entirely. Catherine and Heathcliff are our most predominant lovers. Even though they never technically end up together, the few moments they had when they were legitamitely happy to be in each other presence are quite magical. Emily Bronte's understanding of human nature appears pretty thorough. She understands and portrays nicely that people do and say things that they don't necessarily mean. She also understands that people always want what they can't have. Heathcliff wants Catherine, she can't have him. Catherine Linton wants Linton Heathcliff (at first) but cannot have him.

Wuthering Heights: Question 2

The main conflict of Wuthering Heights is that Catherine and Heathcliff love each other but due to the vast difference in their social classes cannot be together. The cause of this conflict was probably Hindley, Catherine and Heathcliff's older brother. After Mr. Earnshaw dies, Hindley takes over Wuthering Heights and treats Heathcliff like a servant. This prevents him from ever reaching Catherine's level in social class. The gains of this conflict are that Catherine ends up marrying Edgar Linton, who could provide for her much more aptly than Heathcliff could have. Heathcliff, despite his great love for Catherine, simply did not have the means to properly support her in the fashion she was used too. Edgar on the other hand is loaded. He's got the money, the fancy manor, and he loves her. One of the loses of this conflict is that Heathcliff developes this drive to become the master of Wuthering Heights and Thrushcross Grange after he hears Catherine say, "It would degrade me to marry Heathcliff now;" This drive is pretty much what fuels the book after Catherine Earnshaw Linton dies. In order to gain both manors, Heathcliff goes to many extremes. Such as he slowly puts Hindley into so much debt from gambling that he must mortgage Wuthering Heights. In doing so, makes Heathcliff the new master. One manor down, one to go. Next, he locks up Catherine Linton and Nelly in Wuthering Heights in order to marry Catherine and, his son, Linton before Linton can die.

Brontë, Emily. Wuthering Heights. New York: Random House, 1943. Print.

Wuthering Heights: Question 1

Emily Bronte reveals a lot about herself in the pages of Wuthering Heights. Her values and attitudes are made clear to her readers. For instance in the beginning it shows a great amount of mistreatment to Heathcliff. This shows that the problem of mistreatment of children is probably held pretty high in her opinion. Heathcliff is not the only one mistreated though. He soon becomes the tyrant mistreating others, such as his nephew, Hareton, and his own son, Linton. From reading Wuthering Heights, one is lead to believe Bronte values love. Her view of it is a bit twisted but she still values it. For example, Heathcliff is some gypsy boy that Catherine's dad picks up off the street, and back then gypsy's were heavily discriminated against, and Catherine is an educated, sophisticated, girl born to high class parents. Yet Bronte sees fit to throw them together and have them fall in love. But then *plot twist!* she has Catherine marry another! Poor Heathcliff disappears for a few years and then comes back! And they are reunited again! Here's were Bronte appears twisted most. She takes Catherine away from Heathcliff permanently! Wuthering Heights main narrator is Lockwood, a gentleman renting out Thrushcross Grange from Heathcliff, but Nelly generally has the spotlight in order to tell Lockwood the story. It flits from a few others as well, such as Isabella Linton Heathcliff and Zillah, a servant. All of them tell from first person point of view.