Daily Archives: December 19, 2022

Marriage Proposals

Chekhov

In the play, ‘The Proposal, ‘ Chekov shows how easily fights and hostility can destroy a couple’s relationship. He tries to pass the message that couples must learn to reign in their wrath to keep their relationship healthy. Arguing over little matters is counterproductive and destructive. Just like modern time proposals, in the play, we see Ivan going to propose to Natalya. Ivan asks for permission to marry Natalya, he approaches Natalya’s father and asks him to permit him to marry her daughter, and he accepts the proposal (Chekov). The play fits into the performative aspect of proposals because Ivan uses word of mouth to ask for Natalya’s hand in marriage.

Chekov’s play shows that people are given specific roles, ways of acting, and expectations based on their gender. There are ideas behind symbolic gendering in the play. A good example is when Ivan says he wants to marry Natalya because he believes she can be a good housekeeper because of her gender (Chekov). Even now, this same idea is still shown in today’s media, and it is an excellent way to remember that marriage proposals can be about power, gender roles, and expectations. We find that men desire to marry women who will be more submissive, while men are supposed to be more powerful and the head of families after marriage.

The marriage proposal is still reflected in gender today. People still value the idea of marriage proposals. The wedding is an important event in a person’s life; thus, to make it charming and lovely, a marriage proposal is significant since it establishes a harmonious and meaningful relationship between the man and the woman. A marriage proposal is the easiest way to determine how committed your partner is to the relationship and how much they want to make it stronger and more stable.

Dunbar-Nelson

Dunbar-Nelson

Moral criticism evaluates literature and art based on their ability to teach piety and virtue. This approach to criticism was first proposed by Plato, who believed that art should be used to educate and uplift society. In his view, art should be used to teach moral lessons and promote virtuous behavior rather than depicting immoral or corrupting scenes.

One work of literature that can be evaluated using moral criticism is Alice Dunbar-Nelson’s play “Mine Eyes Have Seen.” This play is a historical drama about a group of enslaved Africans brought to the United States in the 1800s(Dunbar-Nelson). The play follows the struggles and triumphs of these characters as they navigate their new lives in the harsh and unforgiving world of slavery.

When evaluating this play using moral criticism, one might ask whether it teaches piety and virtue, as Plato envisioned. On the one hand, some might argue that the play promotes virtuous behavior. The characters in the play face numerous challenges and obstacles, but they always try to do what is right and moral, even in the face of great adversity. They show courage, compassion, and resilience in the face of unimaginable suffering and never give up hope. This is a clear example of the kind of moral instruction that Plato had in mind.

On the other hand, others might argue that the play does not exemplify moral criticism. In their view, the play does not depict virtuous behavior or teach moral lessons but shows the lowest strata of human behavior. The play’s characters are enslaved people subjected to unimaginable cruelty and violence. They are forced to work long hours in the fields and are punished harshly if they do not obey their masters. The play does not show the characters behaving virtuously but rather shows them being mistreated and oppressed.

Additionally, some might argue that the play is corrupting to its audience rather than uplifting. The play shows the brutal and degrading realities of slavery, and some might say this could damage the viewer. They might argue that the play does not promote virtuous behaviour but shows the worst aspects of human nature.

In conclusion, whether or not “Mine Eyes Have Seen” exemplifies moral criticism is a matter of interpretation. Some might argue that the play teaches piety and virtue, while others might say that it depicts the lowest strata of human behavior and is corrupting to its audience. Ultimately, the effectiveness of the play as a moral instruction tool can be debated and discussed.

Feminism in Ichiyo

Ichiyo

In this short story, The Thirteenth Night, Oseki’s female character represents the status of women in the 19th century and the centuries before. Just like Ichiyo tried to get into a romantic relationship with her mentor, Nakarai Tōsui, hoping to get more connections to editors, the female character in the Thirteenth Night had to depend on what her father decided about her marriage, the financial power of her husband, and the need to protect her brother’s job.

Oseki’s experiences reflect what Ichiyo went through while growing up in Japan in the 19th century. Born and raised in a relatively poor family that was once relatively wealthy before things took a new turn, she experienced gender stereotypes from her mother. According to her mother, education was unnecessary for girls, and as a result, she made her stop attending school at the age of 11 despite her strong motivation to continue school. However, she did not have a say in this matter, just like Oseki does not have a say in ending the abusive marriage she is in.

Based on this story, women during this era had little power and also played limited roles in society, then. For instance, Oseki’s father reprimands her, mentioning that it is her responsibility, as a wife, to take care of her abusive husband. He states that her situation is not one of a kind and that many other women are leading unsatisfactory lives with their husbands, “your only responsibility is to Isamu—to make him happy and to manage his household” (Ichiyo 3). In her conversation with her father and mother, Oseki realizes that it is selfish for her to think of a divorce at a time when her own family belongs to a low social class, which also makes them more vulnerable to the potential demands of such a rich husband as Isamu.

In summary, to navigate the systems of power during this historical era, women had to compromise their feelings and thoughts for the sake of men and their children. Oseki, for instance, knows that divorcing Isamu would be the last time she would see her son, Taro, again. She vows to go back and watch over him like a ghost for his sake.

What Does THANKGIVING MEAN?

Student Opinion

The meaning thanksgiving mean to me is the time to spend with the family and friends, loved ones. In school growing up the teachers teaches the children that Thanksgiving Day is when the pilgrims and the Native of American came together and had dinner together. My family is from Mexico, and we don’t really celebrate Thanksgiving Day. Having kids of my own I started to celebrate it. Teaching them the meaning of thanksgiving. Is a time to spend with family and loved ones, appreciate for the things we have and the people who are always there for us.

Marxism in The Thirteenth Night

Ichiyo

In the short story, The Thirteenth Night, by Higuchi Ichiyo, a young woman, Oseki, is troubled in her marriage to an abusive husband named Isamu. However, she does not have the power to decide whether or not to divorce him independently. Her parents are concerned about the well-being of her brother, who is now employed by Isamu, which means that a divorce would affect his job and supplement the family income.

One of the things that Oseki learns from her run-in with Roku is that every person has their share of sadness or grief, based on their context or circumstances. Not everyone gets to fulfill their original wishes in life. Nevertheless, she discovers that Roku has always been in love with her, which is also the primary reason for his financial downfall since he discovered that Oseki was never going to marry him.

Through the lens of a Marxist theory, Oseki pities Roku, her former love, who is now in a lower social class than she is. According to Marxist theory, society is made up of different social classes, the middle, upper, and lower classes, which are in a constant state of conflict. In the current context, Oseki is now in the upper social class, while Roku is in the lower social class. This means that she takes her time to consider her marriage with Isamu as a better choice compared to how things would have been with Roku. In other words, she learns that she is probably lucky to have married Isamu, not Roku.

Parents

Bambara

Parents should be mindful of how they communicate with their children to ensure they are on a path that continues to protect, care for, and promote their overall well-being. Therefore, you need to actively listen to your children in order to show them care and understand them better. Lack of good communication can lead to disharmony and misunderstandings within the family. More importantly, parents should be brutally honest with their children. This is because it helps children improve their communication skills and lays a good foundation for them to become decent adults. For example, in the book Gorilla, My Love, Bambara explains why parents feel untrustworthy when they are unfaithful and unfaithful to their children. Therefore, parents should speak only the truth, no matter how brutal, and not protect their children by saying only good things. Parents must teach their children reality and always match their words with their actions. Finally, parents should avoid making fun of their children.

Chekov

Chekhov

Lomov visits Chubukov at Chubukov’s country house. Chubukov asks why Lomov is dressed up. As an aside to the audience Chubukov wonders if Lomov has come to borrow money.

Lomov finally says he has come to ask for Natalya’s hand in marriage. Chubukov says he is overjoyed. He embraces Lomov and says he will call Natalya. Lomov asks if he can count on her consent. Chubukov says of course, she’s like “a love-sick cat.” He exits.

Lomov talks to the audience. He says he is very nervous. He’s not in love, but he is 35 and it’s time to get married. Natalya is a good housekeeper, not bad looking, well educated. He talks more to let the audience know that he is a neurotic type.

Natalya comes in, offers lunch and smokes, talks about cutting hay. She is surprised that Lomov is dressed up.

Lomov begins to talk about their two families and their lands—specifically, the Oxen Meadows Natalya interrupts and says the Oxen Meadows are theirs, not his.

An argument takes place that is comical. Both Natalya and Lomov insist that the land is theirs. They go back and forth with “Ours,” “Mine,” “Ours,” “Mine.”

Chubukov enters and asks about the shouting. Natalya asks who Oxen Meadows belongs to, and he says, “They’re ours.” There are more arguments, and Chubukov calls Lomov “a grabber.” Chubukov and Natalya say Lomov’s family has lunacy and drunkenness in the background. Lomov says Chubukov’s mother was hump-backed and his grandfather was tried for embezzlement.

Lomov leaves, saying he thinks he’s having a heart attack. Chubukov tells Natalya that Lomov came with the intention of proposing to her. Natalya falls back in hysterics, saying, “Bring him back. Fetch him.”

Lomov returns, complaining about his heart, his foot, etc. Natalya says Oxen Meadows are his. She says to change the subject. So they start talking about hunting dogs.

Once again, they argue. It’s the same as arguing about the land. Lomov says his heart is palpitating, and tells Natalya to shut up. Natalya says she shan’t shut up.

Chubukov enters and asks what’s the matter. Natalya asks whose dog is better—their Squeezer or his Guess. Chubukov gets involved in the argument.

Lomov complains about his heart and says his foot has gone to sleep. Natalya insults Lomov, says he’s not a hunter. Chubukov says Lomov should sit at home with his palpitations.

Lomov and Chubukov go back and forth. Lomov says, “Intriguer!” Chubukov says, “Boy! Pup!” Lomov sats, “Old rat! Jesuit!”

Lomov faints, says his heart has burst. Natalya screams, “He’s dead!”

Lomov comes around. Chubukov says, “Hurry up and get married—she’s willing!” Natalya says, “He’s alive—yes, I’m willing.”

Natalya and Lomov say they’re happy. They kiss.

Then they fight about the dogs some more.

They drink champagne.

Analyze the play using gender theory in literary criticism:

It’s hard to analyze a play from more than a century ago using gender theory. The play “The Proposal” is a satire about the upper -lass Russian custom of marrying couples off to bring together neighboring land holdings.

In this case, Lomov asks Chubukov for Natalya’s hand. Chubukov at least says he will ask Natalya, but tells Lomov that he is happy to be asked. When Lomov asks if Natalya will say yes, Chubukov says of course, that she is like “a love-sick cat.” This is not very feminist, to say the least.

But then, when Natalya enters and she and Lomov start their comedy routine, things become more equal. Natalya shows herself more than the equal of Lomov in their funny bickering.

Chubukov is the first one to say, “Hurry up and get married—she’s willing.” But then Natalya is the first one to say yes.

Apply the Elements of Drama to the play:

Audience: The audience would have a common experience at this play, which is so funny and fast-moving.

Dialogue: The dialogue is witty and humorous. It moves quickly. It deals with the business of the play, which is moving the characters toward (or away from) agreement with each other about whether or not to merge their households.

Plot: The plot in this one-act play is minimal. It takes place on a single day in a single place. Only one thing is supposedly happening, which is Lomov going to Chubukov’s country house to ask for Natalya’s hand in marriage. Of course, there is lots of funny dialogue that happens around this theme. There is plenty of irony, when the plan keeps getting derailed by arguments. And there certainly is open conflict.

Convention: This is a realistic drama, in keeping with the late 19th Century.

Genre: This is a comedy

Characterization: I wouldn’t say that any of these characters are protagonists or antagonists—they’re all just kind of silly.

Analysis of Audio Book Version:

For me, the Audio Book version of the play isn’t as funny as the written version. And I’m sure it isn’t as funny as the version performed on the stage.

That’s because it lacks stagecraft, of course, and an audience. But I also think the dialogue does not come across as being as witty as it seems on the page, and as comical as it would be on the stage. This is a farce, which is defined as using buffoonery and horseplay, and it’s hard to convey that in an audio version. But the lines are also read in a way that is sort of flat, and not a comedic as it could be. The characterization could be better. The characters are not played for their comic potential.

Analysis of the play in light of the Atlantic Montly article on contemporary proposals:

Really, when you think about it, contemporary proposals aren’t all that different from the one in the Chekhov play “The Proposal.” Though the article in the Atlantic didn’t mention it, it’s still quite common for a man to ask a woman’s father for permission before proposing to her. And then, just like in “The Proposal,” it’s the man who usually proposes.

Of course, contemporary proposals tend to be more between the two people involved, whatever their gender. But it’s not unusual to have family members hiding and watching, even if they’re not directly involved. And as the article points out, even if the person being proposed to has doubts, it’s can be hard to resist pressure and say anything but “yes.”