English Learning Portfolio

The Road 

The Importance of being Earnest

Thesis: All novels have soe connection to past stories and draw upon literary traditions but many diverge from these to shape a new story with different plot structure or characters  adding new and vital elements to literature 

Explanation of Book 1: the Road is a novel by Cormac Mcarthy following a father and his son’s journey through a barren post apocalyptic landscape as they attempt to find a respite from the harsh world they find themselves in

Explanation of Book 2: The importance of being earnest is a play by Oscar Wilde following a comedy of errors that result from mistaken identities and attempts to escape the monotony of upper class life

Idea 1: Genre (conventions from past stories)

• Wilde follows the “well made play” 
  • which has a focus on “complex and highly artificial plotting, a build-up of suspense, a climactic scene in which all problems are resolved, and a happy ending.”. The ideas of building up suspense are shared by the novels and to some extent, the road also has a happy ending. However, the complexity and over-the-top plots are not shared. The suspense in the well-made play is often reliant on misunderstanding while the suspense in the road is built over repetitive scenes and the scale of the plot with the risk being death not the small risks of Earnest

Idea 2: Wilde changing genre while McCarthy based on old ideas

• Wilde creating a new type of character “the dandy” while The road is based on old forms of story such as the idea of the “quest” and the Grail
  • Here link in The christian references that are part of the ‘grail’ story type as well as reference throughout the book
• Both strayed from some traditions with Wilde adding the character type and McCarthy’s almost dystopian novel that is devoid of any new civilisation
• But while mostly here earnest is the one that strays form convention in some ways it is more traditional
  • Earnest follows a traditional narrative structure (although very dramatically) while the Road strays from it with many monotone repetitive moments so although tensions is slowly building there is little action

Idea 3: Within the story – autobiographical videas

• But a similarity is that the dandy was based on Wilde himself and the relationship of father and son was based on McCarthy’s own life
  • Past stories could also be autobiographical storys that influenced the writing

Norma’s internal dialogue appearing during Roy’s chapters, such as during the job interview and when he talks to Eve 

–In chapter 11, we begin to sense the wall breakdown between the separate identities of Roy and Norma. Positioned as if in the back seat of the car ride between Eve and Roy, the first-person narrative seems to have shifted to an almost wholly third-person description.The bra being found causes Roy to deviate from his traditional “grounded” narrative. The bra is a part of his hidden person, Norma. He begins to go into magazine speak, a characteristic typical of Norma as he describes ways to clean out the stain from the white bra.

• Suggesting an ingredient…“That get your clothes whiter than the day they were bought” (178)

Norma is Seemingly Paradoxically omniscient here shown through her narration but Roy’s reported thoughts and direct speech, norma is an unreliable narrator yet speaks as if she knows everything about everyone, creating the paradox- she is biased, almost delusional- nobody perceives situations in the same manner as her

• The job interview

• When he encounters Mr. Hands. Roy would not have known about Norma’s experience meeting Mr Hands for the first time but her voice still comes through “Perhaps I should introduce myself, thought Roy” strongly implying they are the same person.

 

Henah: The role that Mary plays in the tension between the split personas of Roy and Norma

• Mary acts as a mother to Roy, a nurturing, caring figure, while she remains a more distant ‘housekeeper’ to Norma
• Considering that she is, in reality, mother to both Roy and Norma, this seems to be a clear rejection of Norma and her femininity
• Mary disposing of Norma’s clothes when she was younger can be interpreted as a desperate attempt to rid of the persona of Norma herself, but also as an attempt to move forward beyond the immense grief that Roy harbours
• Therefore Mary’s growing acceptance—or tolerance—of Norma and her clothing choices are monumental. It breaks down the formally clear distinction between Norma and Roy, and one starts to bleed into the other

 

 Maya: Dichotomy between norma and Roy, mary’s treatment of each. Photos and their significance to the concealment of norma and the personal identity she holds

• “Not a single photo of me” 
• Plays a big role in the allusion to roy and norma being the same person 
  • They cannot simultaneously exist, even in photos 
• “Somehow she always manages to cut me out of the shot”
• Professional photos will ‘mean something to me – something quite special’ (197)
  • Make her feel ‘Invincible’ like ‘64000 silver shillings’ (201)
• Power that comes with knowing norma’s true identity?
• Mary’s treatment of norma after Roy gets a job and settles hints towards the duality, but the reluctance and outright denial of photographing her still carries an underlying tension 
•  photos serve to dramatise and emphasise norma’s womanhood, mirroring her heightened sense of femininity at the moment
• Roy being representative of both Norma and himself is hinted towards by all the photos of him in the house 
  • Especially as norma is now described as more in ‘limbo’ and ghostly when Roy is not home 

Creativity is an interesting lens seeing as it has to do with the role imagination plays. The play is a memory play that often avoids realism. A clear moment of that is the description of the set where the reader understands the meaning the description tries to portray but with the abstract language trying to build that set accurately would be near impossible. Also, creativity comes into play in the scenes where the narrator is not present and since the play is semi-autobiographical Williams likely would not have seen either, but these conversations are still written despite not being based in fact.

In a play that has a main character so similar to the author questions about how much the two share the same perspective are bound to arise. How many of Tom’s views and desires are actually those of Tennessee Williams? Also, when thinking about this, one must consider the fact that the narrator version of tom speaks with heinsight that Williams would also have creating interesting issues as memory is fallable so perspectives could become biased over time, for example with how Amanda irritated Tom in the moment but here is a feeling of fondness for her from the narrator and a little regret for leaving a feeling that probably grew over the years.

Homefire is a retelling of Sophocles’ play Antigone that takes place in the modern-day primarily in England. The book is extremely different to the play since it does not have to follow the unities of ancient greek tragedies and therefore can take place over multiple days and in multiple locations. This allows the story to often be more developed as the reader actually learns about Eamonn (Hamon) and Aneeka’s (Antigone’s) relationship as well as exploring other relationships more such as Isma (Ismene) and Eamonn’s which is never mentioned/nonexistent in the original play. The fact it is in novel form also allows the reader to know the inner thoughts of characters like Karamat (Creon) making their motives potentially more understandable.

A relationship that changes a lot from the original is the father-son relationship between Karamat and Eamonn and in general their whole family dynamic. Rather than the fear that happens it the play Eamonn does say things along the lines of ‘my father will do anything for me’ showing a closer relationship between the two. This is a big change as in Sophocles’ original story Creon is unflinching in his resolves and mentions many times that he would prioritise Thebes over family. The story also adds in a sister and gives the mother more of a role further changing this family.

The book creatively retells the story in such a way where it is an interesting read even without prior knowledge. I read this book without knowing it was a retelling and enjoyed it. Though I do feel as though one gets more out of having the prior knowledge as making connections can be very interesting and the reader notices more small details such as understanding perepeteia and recognising when he begins to regret his actions even though it is too late.

Homefire is able to transform the story of Antigone into a a much more modernly relevant story by being a different form of art (play vs novel) and not having to follow the norms or the exact storyline of the original story and its genre. The creativity of building a relationship between Isma and Eamonn or keeping Parvaiz alive for much of the play changes a lot especially with the storyline of Parvaiz as the author adds many characters and an original storyline through him. These sort of changes not only showcase the originality that can be shown in retellings but they add to the story. These changes leave readers wondering if the ending will also change or will it just turn out the same again? and hope it doesn’t even as the end is coming closer and closer. This is a common thing with retellings in ones of other greek myths or even slightly newer works like Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet that has received many new spins on the storyline over the years when sometimes the story ending changes but a lot of the time it doesn’t. This happens in Homefire where the reader hopes the author changed the ending but that false hope leads to a fascinated read that often ends exactly how one would expect. This is part of the reason why I think knowing that the story is a retelling adds to it as I did not remember much about how the story ended (just a vague idea that someone died) and this wondering added a lot to the story.

 

 

I find it interesting how she interacts with Ismene in both the parados and the later episodes. I feel as though Ismene brings out the worst in many of the characters around her as Creon seems crueller in contrast to her as he jumps to conclusions and calls her a snake. In addition to this, Antigone’s stubbornness and hubris appear clearer in contrast to Ismene’s caution. The way Antigone reacts to the idea of her dying with her shows her need for the spotlight and how devoted she is to the gods that she believes she will be rewarded for her actions and is blind to their impact on the world of the living as she views human law as almost inconsequential in comparison to godly law and tradition

 

Other people’s thoughts:

 “She is so hot-headed and unbending in her resolve; so fundamentalist in her hubris and pride that she begins to bend the conventions of what constitutes a tragic hero itself. This is in part the innovation of the playwright…” (Tanisha)

“On one hand, the strong religious convictions and the drive and tunnel vision of Antigone can be seen as admirable. For someone to be that driven for a cause is interesting as she sees it as her ultimate goal. she is cold and unwelcoming, traits often looked down upon in women as they are often expected to fill the societal role of the nurturing mother or be gentle in a way. The prickly nature of Antigone makes it hard to sympathise with her especially with her complete lack of self-preservation. She seems like she wants to die and that is her only aim, thus the audience is unable to empathise with her, she doesn’t seem vulnerable nor particularly in need of saving, therefore, she is a character the audience may root for however has little to no emotional investment in.”   (Maya)

“I find it interesting how Sophocles problematizes Antigone through her deeply human, flawed behaviour intertwined with her respect of the divine law” (Henah)

 

The two productions are extremely different, with the BBC one being in relatively typical ancient greek dress while the national theatre appears to have more world war two or later era costuming, with the beginning appearing to show some sort of industrial setting. With people watching some sort of TV.

The other one begins with photos of Creon descending from the roof and soldiers saluting. This seems to show the beginning of an authoritarian state as Creon comes to power and immediately implements martial law and makes orders that go against the Gods. This continues a theme in the Theban plays where man vs god especially within the law is a common conflict. The posters appear to watch the area and the scene between the sisters in a 1984-esque idea of “big brother is watching you”.

In terms of staging in the BBC version, the sisters stand in a closed-off area but stand far away from each other, showing distance between the two as they argue. While in the national theatre one, they stand close together, while in the National Theatre production, they stand close together in a very open hall. At times they also stand on the steps continuing an occasional motif in Oedipus Rex of greater height signifying greater power which may link to the line about Antigone and Ismene having “royal blood”.

In conclusion, the two productions are extremely different with the National Theatre version being very close to the original play in terms of set design and costumes while the BBC version changes the era possibly in order to relate the recent battle that takes place in Thebes before the play to WW2 or another conflict from the era in order to make the audience understand the scale of the conflict.

Szymborska is a metaphysical poet who utilises conversational language and paradoxical bluntness, resulting in her poems being uniquely hers. This was shown in her poem ‘possibilities’, where her preferences are often idiosyncratic but create a realistic image of her that seems almost relatable in how different all people are.

She lived through WW2 and the years of communist Poland. This has shaped her outlook on life in how she appears pessimistic towards humanity but optimistic about the world. Her poem ‘a political age’ reflects all that has happened in her lifetime and how one cannot escape politics even though it can be quite useless. Her life experience is also shown in her poem ‘hatred’, where she references ‘religion’ and ‘fatherland’, two themes she said carried weight and have blood flowing through them in response to a fan’s poetry. The idea of fatherland may be a reference to the second world war. As we discussed in cases, she may also have been partly blaming patriarchal society as war and violence happened under their leadership.

Don’t pretend to be women. I don’t get the sense that they understand women. The character is described as “a peculiar and solitary woman, who loves grappa, karaoke, classic cars and sex in SUVs” sounds like an “I’m not like other girls” character rather than a natural person.

It’s not that bad of a thing, but it is not that difficult to have a male name. Lying for years and also pretending to write a  genuine female character adds up to some really bad misrepresentation.

“Wilde’s characters are nothing more than caricatures, two-dimensional – and therefore oversimplified – representations of upper class vice and folly”

I disagree with the prompt while the play is extremely humorous and slightly ridiculous the characters still have recognisable characteristics from one another with different backstories as well as varying levels of intelligence and seriousness making them have some depth. In pretty much all literature characters serve a purpose whether it is to further the plot or to create irony. In this play, the characters are used to poke fun at the upper class and while the actual play might not be the most meaningful it still is able to make many comments on the behaviours and attitudes of the upper class. Anyone who watches the play could recognise the shallowness of the characters or the pretentiousness of some opinions of the upper class and therefore even though the play/characters make light of a lot of these things I think it is still able to have meaning. (My response)

 

I don’t think so – one has to keep in mind that Oscar Wilde always said he never wanted his art to have any meaning other than beauty, so any degree of meaning the audience gets is theoretically entirely of our own making. I don’t think the reductive nature of the characterisation impacts the morals of the play because they symbolise ideas more than characters. The play, like most, demonstrates thematic concerns through characterisation – these characters don’t have to be reality, just the echo of reality as all art arguably is. We can see truth in the echo of life no matter how ‘simple’ it may seem to be – verisimilitude. (Lila)

 

I find myself agreeing with this statement to a certain extent, as Wilde’s characters bear exaggerated similarities with the upper class of the Victorian era. This limits the social commentary of the play as a whole, as the lack of depth in their characters and thus the quick resolve of conflict is easy to laugh at but difficult to make a lasting impact on the social class it criticises. A more complex characterisation would perhaps include nuance in terms of the way individual characters feel about conforming/rebelling against societal expectations. However, their ridiculous behaviour and cleverly absurd lines both seem to be fully intentional. I don’t think Wilde was trying to make genuine social commentary, but rather, a piece of art that is beautiful and enjoyable—in which he absolutely succeeded. (Henah)

 

Although the characters that Wilde constructs are parodies of the upper class I think the messages that are subtly conveyed ( e.g the role of christianity + marriage) are meaningful topics. humour can be used as a means of social commentary as done in the play. (Kian)

“The Importance of Being Earnest was an early experiment in Victorian melodrama. Part satire, part comedy of manners, and part intellectual farce, this play seems to have nothing at stake because the world it presents is so blatantly and ostentatiously artificial. Below the surface of the light, brittle comedy, however, is a serious subtext that takes aim at self-righteous moralism and hypocrisy, the very aspects of Victorian society that would, in part, bring about Wilde’s downfall.” (Sparknotes)

 

It is extremely clear that Wilde must have been an interesting person. He was a popular dinner guest before his fame, a self-proclaimed genius and definitely would have stood out from normal people at the time. He was uncompromising in his identity and relationships since even when he was threatened with arrest he refused to run away. Judging by what I know of his literary work he enjoyed and valued wit. His values especially within his choices in relationships would have heavily clashed with society at the time as well as other aspects of his personality. This might be shown in his work through the relationships he chooses to portray for example in The Picture of Dorian Gray. His feelings regarding etiquette could perhaps also be inferred from his works as the Importance of Being Earnest begins with both main characters having over the top ways to get out of social engagements as maybe drastic methods to get out of this sort of thing without seeming rude at the time. His satire for society probably has multiple reasons. In my opinion, these were probably to make a mockery of a society that did not accept him and a mockery of the parts that he followed for example his fashion choices and dinner parties that would presumably be full of etiquette related rules. However, I am not sure of the extent to which he was a member of high society but from what I know I think he would have potentially mocked himself a little.

 

Other people writings:

I think that to Wilde, anything beautiful held importance. A true aesthete, his devotion to writing and the arts seem to be sufficient evidence of it. His extravagant spendings on fashion and clothing, as well as decorating his house in London even while going into debt, reveals his fixation on beauty. There is also a sense of arrogance and pride he holds for being a unique, educated, intelligent and sophisticated individual, which once again reflects his values and outlook in life. -Henah Kwak

I think the seeds for satirical representation of high society began during his time at Oxford and much more after returning from the United States (after he’s got more money). With the money to experience the upper class, he could see what wealth can buy and meet the people that attain it. I believe he intentionally mocks the high-class individuals, but Wilde has assumed that he is and will never be associated with them. Perhaps it’s a reminder to be humble or to stay self-aware of being pretentious. But by these satirical jokes in his works, he points out and ridicules (innocently) the “untouchable” in the Victorian era, something that was unheard of or not written about before.- Ruby Psillides

Wilde never attempted to fit the mould – indeed, he was verifiably convinced of his own genius – See “The only thing I have to declare is my genius”. His exuberant personality and flamboyant nature provided a direct contrast to Victorian ideals. Men were expected to be courteous and attentive husbands and the breadwinners of their families. Wilde did not appear to care for these restraints, and his homosexuality, which was then severely looked down upon, meant that he did not confer to these norms.

Wilde never attempted to fit the mould – indeed, he was verifiably convinced of his own genius – See “The only thing I have to declare is my genius”. His exuberant personality and flamboyant nature provided a direct contrast to Victorian ideals. Men were expected to be courteous and attentive husbands and the breadwinners of their families. Wilde did not appear to care for these restraints, and his homosexuality, which was then severely looked down upon, meant that he did not confer to these norms.

His plays were scathing commentaries on the highfalutin cultural norms and expectations that were so prominent then. In some respect, he might also be mocking himself in his satirical representation of high society. They were materialistic and put on a carefully curated presentation of themselves. This was not far from the constructed front he put on himself, hiding his homosexuality and instead conferring to what was expected of him by society by staying with his wife until her death.- Tanisha Patil