11/27/19: Mark Gerges

11/27/19

Sophomores 2020
Mark Gerges
Period 5

Aim: How does Shakespeare’s use of “FOILS” develop characterization and enhance the themes of Macbeth?

As class began, we were given a Do Now that asked us to analyze a few lines from Banquo’s soliloquy at the beginning of Act 3. These lines read:

“Thou hast it now— King, Cawdor, Glamis, all as the weird women promised, and I fear thou playd’st most foully for’t.”

As a class, we came to the conclusion that this quote was explaining how Banquo believed that the witches’ prophecy had begin to come true. He also believed that Macbeth gained this power foully, connecting back to the concept of “fair is foul, and foul is fair”.

After the Do Now we began to discuss the meaning of a Foil in literature. A Foil is “a character who is meant to represent characteristics, values, ideas, etc. which are directly and diametrically opposed to those of another character, usually the protagonist.” Simply two characters who were raised in similar surroundings and circumstances, but developed different ways of thinking. Some examples were Jack and Ralph from Lord of the Flies or Batman and the Joker from DC Comics. We connected this to Macbeth and said that Banquo was a foil to Macbeth.

We then began to read Act 3 Scene 1 together as a class and we came across another soliloquy, this time from Macbeth. Once again, we analyzed the soliloquy to find hidden meaning and intentions of Macbeth in it. After analyzation we saw that Macbeth’s mentality had completely changed. At first before killing Duncan, Macbeth was very hesitant at times about whether he should commit such a deed. However now, in Macbeth’s soliloquy, he states that he will kill Banquo in order to retain the kingly status of his lineage. After all he’s sacrificed, Macbeth is willing to take it a step further

Reflection:
In today’s lesson I learned the new term, “Foil”, characters with similar upbringings but later branch off and develop different ways of thinking. We used this term to better understand the relationship between Macbeth and Banquo and how their relationship has developed throughout the play, especially now that Macbeth seeks to kill Banquo. This term can also be applied to any literature where a relationship as such present. It better defines a specific relationship between two characters.

Sabrina Zhou 11/27/19 Period 2 - Blog #1

I’ve never blogged before in my life, so this is an experience. 

November 27, 2019. I ask you, reader, do you have a brother? No? Well, imagine you do have one, if you don’t. Now, imagine you had a husband too. Say you love this hubby very much. Well, your darling hubby is trying to kill your dear brother for “disloyalty”. Such was the case for Jocasta, Oedipus’s wife, who was a witness to Oedipus attempting to banish her brother, Creon.

What would you do?

• A classmate kicked off the discussion with a Yo Mama joke (“So, Jo—” to which someone else cries “Jo Mama!” and the comment “Oedipus’s Mama!” is fired right back at him. Everyone clapped). There followed up a comment about the power of persuasion. Jocasta could persuade her husband for mercy for her brother. Indeed, that is what she exercises in the play to save her brother: Calm, “prophecy-defying” persuasion. 

• One discussion later I was staring at a huge chunk of text on the board: Stichomythia. It is a technique in verse originating from Ancient Greece, where dialogue between two characters is in small, alternating half-lines. It is representative of two characters fighting: fast-paced, and altogether contentious. Think of two children fighting over a toy. “I want it!” “No, I want it!” “NO, I want it!” “NO, I WANT IT” “WANT IT.” “WANNNNNT ITTTT.” Well, the back and forth dialogue, and the quick snappy lines, are like that of a stichomythia, although my example is considerably more crude. The stichomythia we analyze is the dialogue between Creon and Oedipus, on pages 133-135. Oedipus assumes Creon is plotting against him, and Creon fires back against his comments, and the result is a quick argument. They have lines in about equal proportion, which adds to the stylized pacing of the two.

• Now enter Jocasta again. She is all about persuasion, as aforementioned. She tries proving to Oedipus that the prophecy he heard is a lie, and that humans have no place in dabbling with the divine. But to us, this dialogue is just a hotbed of irony. She’s referencing a prophecy to state that humans have no right to prophecy! And she exclaims that Laius was killed by some robbers “at a place where three roads meet”. Therefore, Laius was never killed by his son, so the prophecy never came true, right? WRONG. Oedipus realizes he was this “robber”, but he still doesn’t realize that he is Laius’s son, so he simply grasps that he murdered the king, and all that “tough guy talk” he made before about “driving the killer of Laius from our homes, since he is our pollution…” well, it’s him! He better drive himself away! Finally, Jocasta mentions how Laius stabbed their son’s feet and cast him far away, stating that the son was dead, so how could the prophecy ever play out? To which, somehow, Oedipus doesn't make the connection that his scarred feet instantly proved him to be the son of Laius. Man, if only I had a nickel for every time there was an instance of dramatic irony...  

• It leads us to an interesting question though: What about Jocasta? She is Oedipus’s husband, after all. The clues are all laid in front of her. Wouldn’t she realize that her husband is the son she birthed many years before?

• That takes us to a discussion about truth and denial of the truth. To reference yesterday’s discussion about truth: the general class consensus was to tell the truth, no matter what, despite the hurt it may cause. Jocasta probably knows the truth, but doesn’t speak up. Why? Is she trying to be merciful to her beloved husband/son? Is this concealment to keep him safe and worry-free? Is she trying to deny and absolve it from herself?

• In Greek Mythology, Laius, before kinghood, was the kidnapper and rapist of the divine hero  Chrysippus. Chrysippus might’ve been a 12 year old boy at the time, and the Gods vowed to punish Laius for such a crime. And he was: his son was fated to kill him. But Oedipus is facing the consequences of Laius’s actions too. It goes back to an old Greek Mythology motif: children must always face the consequences of what their parents did. The statement is like a deterrent to the parents: be good, and your children will also live a good life, but if you ruin it, your children are hurt by your actions too. 

• A small comment on the “Oedipus Complex”: a concept where one has a sexual attraction to his/her parent of the opposite gender. Well, Oedipus exercises precisely this. But I must add: is it really his fault he lies in bed with his mother? He doesn’t know, after all. He “was fated to do so”. The Oedipus Complex is built on the foundation of freely knowing that one is lying with their parent. But where is freewill in Oedipus’s case? Maybe the “Oedipus Complex” is an unfair label to him. 

• So our class went in three directions today. One: Stichomythia, and how it tells of Creon & Oedipus’s dramatic argument, and Creon’s self-establishment of his innocence, despite Oedipus’s assumptions. Two: Dramatic Irony (heaps of it!) and how Oedipus is making many personal connections to the prophecy, but somehow still can’t grasp the big, giant, humongous picture. Three: Jocasta and the possibility that she is in denial of the truth. Maybe she conceals the truth to hide herself and Oedipus from the pain and guilt of acknowledging it. It all leads back to Truth itself. If we were in Jocasta’s shoes, would we still tell the truth? If we were Oedipus, how would we take it when we do realize the truth? Is Creon’s truth enough to overcome a hot temper like that of Oedipus’s? Stay tuned, and we’ll know in the next episode of “Oedipus and his Hot Mess of a Life”.

(Student Reflection: The prevalence of truth to all the characters in Oedipus is just as prevalent to us. We established that yesterday, but today’s class brought it even more towards Jocasta. We’re never going to be in a situation where our husband is our son, but what of a situation where we know a huge truth, and we don’t know how/ if to share it? What would we have done if we were Jocasta ourselves? We explored her motives and denial to see if she was making the ideal choice. It is similar with Oedipus’s situation: to us, we laugh at the irony of it all, but Oedipus fails to grasp the truth right in front of him. Utter failure to see a truth can happen to us too. What do we do then? Do we rely on others to see it for us? What if they themselves shrink from the truth? Basically, when we face a truth, how are we going to use it?)  

11/27/19 Edmund Yuen PD 7

11/27/2019 

Edmund Yuen Pd. 7 

Aim: How does the introduction of Jocasta in the play add complexity and discord to the drama? 

We started off the lesson with the Do Now: Imagine the situation that Jocasta is in - her husband 

wants to kill/banish her brother for disloyalty. What would you do? 

Kevin and I discussed this and we agreed that it would be difficult to choose either side as one is 

your husband of many years and the other is your brother whom you love and trust dearly. 

When we shared out some people stated that they would choose their brother, Creon, over 

Oedipus. For example, Cornelia said that if she would feel closer to her brother rather than 

Oedipus and would side with Creon. On the other hand, Iandra said she would attempt to placate 

both sides as her husband and her brother were of equal importance and it would be difficult 

to choose a side. 

Ms. Fusaro then explained that the purpose of this do now was to examine

the mindset of Jocasta  as it would be an integral part of the lesson. 

Stichomythia - is a technique in verse drama in which sequences of single alternating lines,

or half-lines, or two-line speeches, are given to alternating characters. It typically

features repetition and antithesis. The term originated in the theatre of Ancient Greece,

though many dramatists since have used the technique. 

Well suited to sections of dramatic dialogue where two characters that are in a violent dispute. 

In-Class Reading 

We then read an example of stichomythia between Creon and Oedipus on pages 134 & 135. 

In this brief exchange between the two, we saw that Oedipus was accusing Creon of sending 

Teiresias to mislead him in order to claim more power. Creon argued that he had no reason to 

seek more power and even more so no reason to betray Oedipus. 

This is an interesting point of the reader as what Creon stated is credible and

makes sense. This brings into question whether Teiresias was telling the truth or

not. This is also another example of Oedipus’ hubris as he refuses to listen to

Creon’s strong arguments as he insists Creon is guilty. 

We then moved on to page 141. 

Ms.Fusaro notes to pay attention to Jocasta.

On this page, Oedipus explains to Jocasta his worries and Teiresias’ prophecy that he was 

destined to “Murder his father and marry his mother”. Jocasta says that is nonsense and explains 

how Laius was killed at a crossroads by robbers and their son was dead. 

Ms. Fusaro mentions Jocasta is essentially a “Mommy-Wife-Cougar”. 

Page 150 & 151. 

We learn that Oedipus’ ‘father’, Polybus, has died. The couple felt relieved as they believe this 

to mean that the prophecy had failed. 

Despite this, Oedipus still worries about bedding his mother. To this Jocasta responded, “As to 

your mother’s marriage bed,-don’t fear it. Before this, in dreams too, as well as oracles, many 

a man has lain with his own mother.” (This is not something that occurs often, in modern times 

or ancient Greece.) In this, we see how similar Jocasta and Oedipus are as they are both in 

denial and avoid the truth as they insist the prophecy has failed. 

Jocasta...A History of Denial? 

We learn about Chrysippus, a divine hero of Elis. He was taught by Laius, but when being 

escorted to the Nemean Games, Laius brought him to Thebes and raped him. 

The class was aghast after learning this. Even more so when learning Chrysippus was only 13. 

This would result in Laius, his city, and his family being cursed and punished by the gods. 

This is another example of children paying for their parent’s actions in Greek Mythology. Oedipus would suffer greatly for his father’s actions.

(Similar cases include all of Zeus’ children sired with other gods and mortals). 

Whole Group Discussion: 

Does the possibility that Jocasta’s knowledge of Laius’ history make any statement about her character?

About the plight of women? Responsibility of the women? 

Shannon brings up an interesting point about the scars on Oedipus’ feet from his childhood. 

After being married for such a long period of time, how did Jocasta not notice the scars and 

relate them to Laius’ impaling their child’s feet? 

We discussed the Oedipus Complex and how it theorized. Rossi and Billy said that since our first 

role-models, we often look for qualities similar to our parents in our insignificant others. 

Walk-Out & Student Reflection 

There is a great possibility that Jocasta knew that Oedipus was her son, but

she withheld from telling him due to circumstance. It was important to maintain

the idea of Jocasta’s mindset throughout today’s lesson in order to get an

in-depth analysis of her actions. Today’s readings also helped me understand why Jocasta

chose to keep the secret hidden from Oedipus. From today I learned not to travel

on the ‘crossroads’ of Tysens and Hylan Boulevard, lest I be killed by someone

named Swollen Foot. All jokes aside, today’s lesson further enforced my belief that

truth should not be withheld from those you love as it would be a burden to you

and would only bring further harm to come. 

Happy Thanksgiving! 

David Gao|PD5|11/26/19| Duncan and his terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day

11/26/19

Sophomores
David Gao
Period 5

Aim: What is pathetic Fallacy used to illustrate the unnatural order of the Macbeth universe?

We started the lesson by continuing from yesterday's lesson by finishing the act 2 scene 3 of Macbeth that we were reading and finishing act 2 scene 4 as well, which is the final scene of the act. The story goes that Macduff found the king dead and cries out. And with the awakening of the entire estate, so does Duncan's sons: Malcolm and Donalbain who after discovering their father murdered quickly fled to England and Ireland respectively. Reasonable reactions, after all their father had just been murdered and what other reason is there to murder the king then the crown, and as they were next in line they intelligently fled. During this scene, they also say "There's daggers in men's smiles: the near in blood, The nearer bloody." Which after some class discussion we concluded to mean that they think that the person who killed Duncan is still on the property and that no one can really be trusted as people can look nice and smile at you but that doesn't mean you know what they're really thinking, which is a motif throughout the story that people may not be who they seem. 

Next we then went back to the literary techinique, pathetic fallacy, we went back over what it meant, and in a nutshell is a personification, which is giving an inanimate or otherwise non-human thing human traits or emotions. Someone else also mentioned that because it is personification it is also figurative language. Also during yesterday's lesson, Ms. Fusaro explained to us that pathetic fallacy wasn't about feeling pity for something it was actually from the word pathos which meant emotion, which is the real definition of the fallacy, to attribute emotion to something found in nature that is not human. 

This fallacy is found often in scenes three and four of act two. One example is when Lennox describes the bad weather they're having and the screams of death which coincidently happens the same night that Duncan is murdered. Another example is when Ross was talking to the old man about Duncan's horses, which are supposed to be the best as they are the king's horses, rebelled against their caretakers and ate each other.

The use of this fallacy is also for irony which is very present in scenes three and four as all the bad things that are happening are happening after Duncan was murdered. 

After this, we talked about the rest of the scene, especially about Macbeth killing the two guards. We talked about how in the eyes of the other people he would seem incredibly suspicious since he decided to kill the only two people that seemed to be connected to Duncan's murder. And he was talking way too much and going on and on about how his emotions overwhelmed him, meanwhile the king is dead. And so as because of her less than intelligent husband Lady Macbeth has to bring the focus onto her and away from Macbeth by promptly fainting. It's also worth it to note that a little before this scene when Lady Macbeth asks what is going on after everyone discovered that Duncan was killed she is referred to as "O gentle lady..." by Macduff, which couldn't be further from the truth as Duncan's murder was premeditated and she was the mastermind!

Later on, as Macduff is leaving Macbeth's estate he is talking to Ross who greets him hilariously by asking him "How goes the world, sir, now?" And proceeds soon after if Macduff is going to scone to see Macbeth's coronation to be king. To which he replies no, and this is a big deal because a coronation is a big deal to go to as it is crowning the next king. So this line saying that he's going home to Fife, which he is the thane of, is a big deal since it shows that he's suspicious of Macbeth and his relation to the death of Duncan. 

And to end the period off we get to get extra credit on our overall grade if we do an assignment where we illustrate a pathetic fallacy. Oh and we can't do it if we miss a blog or something so I gotta finish this soon. 

My Reflection 

In class today I learned about pathetic fallacies and how they're used. I learned that it is basically personification and is often use by Shakespeare for irony, which is something he does a lot. I also learned how to identify these fallacies as they are more obvious to spot now that I have something to compare it to that I had previous knowledge of. I along with the class also encountered the motif of not judging by one's cover again. And this information can be used in real-world situations too since in real life you shouldn't judge people by their faces but rather their personalities or something more real as you cannot peek into their brains. In the end, I think that I can use that motif and look for it more in Shakespeare's other works and other nods to it in Macbeth and I also know how to spot pathetic fallacies in writing and the actual meaning of the term. 

Selena Zhong 11/26/19 Period 2 - Blog #1

Selena Zhong

11/26/19

Period 2

Blog #1 - Blogger 33

Aim: How does the paradox of blindness illuminate the Oedipus' tragic flaw of hubris?

Option 3 for me: all truth should always be discovered but not always broadcasted, especially with bad intent in mind 

Audio File Link: Ms. Fusaro reviewed Oedipus' back story
Oedipus Back Story

Oedipus' children weren’t said to have had any issues (genetically like three eyes), they were all killed in later stories like the 2 brothers (Polynices & Eteocles) who killed each other to take over Thebes and the 2 sisters (Ismene & Antigone) who also inadvertently killed each other (actions led to suicide in Antigone's story).

When Oedipus figured out the truth, he gauges his own eyes out with Jocasta's hairpin and exiles himself from Thebes. 

Bobby chose option 2 (truth is a commodity) 

• Depends on if the truth is beneficial and it's subjective  
• Would choose the beneficial option for oneself like stay in the dark to not hurt ourselves, especially if it was something that happened in the past and was out of your control 

Ben says ignorance is bliss 

Ex. Government can't always tell the truth, withhold certain facts like in times of war 

• Or release info to increase patriotism and support for war efforts 
• Sometimes need to lie or tell exaggerated versions of the truth for a special reason 

Yayin chose option 1 (truth always) 

• You don't want to hurt the other person you are lying to 
• All truths should be known to hurt less now than later 

Joshua chose option 1 too

• he believes that truth is the only definite thing in society and is what we can rely on when everything else is wrong or chaotic
• Ignorance is the basis of the main problems in society so it's better knowing than not. 

Henry chose option 2 

• he points out that truth is not a constant and will change depending on who is telling or listening to it. 

Unsa also agreed with option 1 

• she says that gossip is something you should not keep from people.  
• Instead, you should tell the person to learn about what they're being gossiped about and then find some way to fix or deal with the issue.  Sometimes, it's a way to help someone improve themselves. 

Sabrina says she lies when she chooses to

• She believes that white lies are fine because they keep things acceptable and not hurt people, because they're a little more neutral and not on any extreme side (with any positive or negative effect in mind)

Basis of most mythology is that downfall of humanity came in the form of truth 

Ex. In Christianity, God told Eve and Adam to not go near the tree, but they did and ate the apple which kicked them out of the Garden of Eden. 

Pandora was told to not open the box which held many evils that would later plague humanity because of her curiosity and mistake. 

In both of these myths, the first humans' mistakes in trying to satisfy their thirst for truth led to future generations of mankind suffering. 

TRUTH IS A PARADOX AND SO ARE ORACLES AND PROPHECIES. 

If I did not learn my prophecy, would I try to change it and fight against it? 

According to Fate, it would've happened anyway but would it still have happened if you didn't know about your fate? 

Ex. Macbeth - would he have plotted against and assassinated King Duncan if he wasn't told by the witches that he would be "crowned king"? 

ALL PROPHETS AND ORACLES FALL UNDER APOLLO AND HE AND THEY CAN NOT LIE, BUT BOTH CAN STILL WITHHOLD SOME TRUTH. 

Pinnochio's nose is a paradox because when he says "My nose will grow!" - If his nose is growing, he is telling the truth, so it can't happen. If his nose will grow, he will be telling the truth, but his nose grows if he lies so it can't happen. If his nose will not grow, he is lying and it will grow but then he would be telling the truth so it can't happen. 

Here is another Paradox example =  

You can't follow the directions to ignore it if you don't look or adhere to it. 

It is significant that the play starts with a question. 

Gautaman says a question may interest the audience and sets up for the play to answer the question as the plot develops, giving the audience who probably already knows the gist of the story something else to look forward to in the drama. 

Anna was successfully ghosted by Gautaman. 

For the reading of pgs. 128 to 132 in class today:

• Yayin was Oedipus  
• Sabrina was Teiresias 
• Joshua was Creon 
• Gautaman, Bobby, Robert, Henry, and Ben made up the Chorus. 

In Line 424, the "grim equality" is that Oedipus and his own kids have the same mom. 

Chorus went from commentary to actual people responding to characters in the play.  They transitioned from talking about the characters and meanings of their dialogues/words for the audience to better understand to actually conversing with a character in the play, Creon, like real characters in the book (like movie extras).  Broke the 4th Wall to reverting back to the plot! 

Thomas commented that the Greeks need to work on killing their babies – they're always giving away their babies to someone else to kill when their children are prophesied to somehow kill them in the future.  Like why can't you wring your son's neck right after he's born and that's that? YOU HAD ONE JOB! 

Senan says that Oedipus doesn't want to listen to the prophecy anymore once he begins to not like what he's hearing, calling Teiresias' words lies. 

Joshua says that Oedipus accuses Teiresias of not being a real prophet (a quack) and that he is in cahoots with Creon to overthrow him to take power for themselves and that both are liars. 

Derrick is also successfully ghosted by Joshua. 

Anna says that his signs of rashness shown when he snapped back at the oracle and sent the oracle away when he didn't tell him everything he wanted to know. 

Emma says Teiresias is very considerate to not tell Oedipus the entire truth because he knows and repeatedly warns Oedipus that not knowing is for his own good.  Teiresias is very patient and experienced. 

Yayin agrees with Emma and adds that Teiresias is not telling Oedipus everything because he can see that Oedipus obviously can't handle the truth despite demanding to hear the "truth". 

Ms. Fusaro says that Oedipus should have had more reverence and respect for Teiresias as he is a prophet of the gods, but he doesn't and this is a sign of his great HUBRIS. 

Analogy:  The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead. 

Teiresias is physically blind but Oedipus is not.  However, Oedipus refuses to see the truth in front of him despite the efforts of those around advising him. 

DIDN'T GET TO THE ABOVE GROUP WORK ASSIGNMENT BEFORE THE BELL RANG BUT INCLUDED THE PICTURE HERE FOR THE QUOTE. 

---

Student Reflection:

In the reading we did in class today, I learned that foolish pride and vanity (hubris) can make someone even more “blind” than an actual blind person.  In the case of Oedipus, he so desperately says that he wishes to know the truth about who the murderer of Laius is as he or she is apparently responsible for his people’s suffering, but his actions say otherwise.  Every chance that he gets to refute or oppose Teiresias’ good intentions of sparing him the full truth (as the truth would be far too shocking and painful for all parties involved, especially the key perpetrator himself Oedipus), Oedipus takes it, calling all of his words false slander and his divine job as a prophet undeserved.  His logic is that as the saver of Thebes from the sphinx before, he can’t possibly be the “pollution” Teiresias speaks of and stubbornly warps the truth set before him to benefit himself, accusing the prophet of working with Creon to steal his throne. I feel that Oedipus’ example in his story so far demonstrates how people may psychologically block out things that may hurt them or that they perceive a threat to in a form of self-preservation.  For example, when being accused of doing a horrible deed (like a murderer), you would immediately go on the defensive and scramble for reasons why you just CAN’T be the culprit, resorting to even attacking your accusers who you now perceive to be hostile towards you. They would continue to deny the facts in front of them even if the evidence was practically unquestionable, like Teiresias’ inability to lie as a divine messenger of the god who can’t lie Apollo.  This makes me become more aware of how myself and the people around me may face the “truths” that are thrown our way; are we as blind as Oedipus was? In all, today’s class has truly opened my eyes to how people react to important truths about themselves and I commend the Greeks for having created and taught the masses this lesson early in history.