The value and importance of friendship is very apparent throughout the novel “Never Let Me Go”. Kazuo Ishiguro utilizes both characters and language to show exactly how important it is to everyone, clone or human, to have a person or people to depend upon for all kinds of twists that life brings your way.
The most apparent friendships described throughout the story is that of the narrator, Kathy. Kathy describes memories of various events spent with her two closest friends, Ruth and Tommy. Both of which grew-up with her and so hold a special and strong friendship.
Ruth is one of Kathy’s closest girlfriends. Ever since they were young the two spent most of their time together, confiding in each other, and having each others back. Throughout the story, even when times got hard, Kathy and Ruth would always look out for each other. One example was when Kathy supported Ruth’s story at school regarding that pencil case. Even though Kathy knew the truth and had confronted Ruth in private, she still backed-up her story noting to Midge they couldn’t tell her where it came from and remarking that is was “a big mystery”(page 63). In doing so Kathy kept the inside fictitious story alive within the close group of girls. Later the same respect was shown by Ruth as she tried endlessly to find Kathy’s lost tape. In the end, Kathy ended-up being Ruth’s carer. Supporting and comforting her through the donations until Ruth was complete.
The other major friend described was Tommy. Like Ruth, Tommy and Kathy were friends ever since they were young children. Even through the constant criticism provided to Tommy by other children, Kathy was always there to help calm him down and help him through his difficult times. They would talk about all kinds of item to which neither fled comfortable speaking with others about. Even until the end, Kathy was there for Tommy through his donations up until this fourth donation when he completed.
Another part of the story which reflected the need for companionship and value of friendship is seen with the carers. They are clones which are there to comfort and support the donors as they go through their donations on until they complete. This provides the donors with the comfort for relaxation and not stressing out or worrying about what happens to the donors when they complete.
Friendship and moral support is seen throughout the book to help the characters through their life as they work their way to their known end. The friendships are a great way for them to have the same socialism as humans have within their own society. This also is a way to show the similarities between the humans and clones, and the social needs that both require within their life.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Friday, March 25, 2011
DRJ#4 Hamlet, Act IV and V
These two acts put an end to the story and the ongoing conflicts between various characters. The only character that reminds me of anyone is Gertrude, she is a typical mother. Her feelings for her son never seem to be unwavering; this is something that I can relate to as I have two children of my own. It was very sad to see her affections for her son as he was fencing with Laertes, and then with her last breath warning her son of the poisoned wine.
Hamlet of course was a major character throughout both of these acts. He is first sent away to England, where Claudius was going to have him murdered, but Hamlet devised a scheme to go back to the castle. So we can see that he is very much sane and not crazy at all. Then with the sudden understanding of Ophelia’s death, Hamlet confesses to being in love with Ophelia. I wonder whether Ophelia would have still gone crazy and killed herself if Hamlet would have confessed his love to her in the beginning. I also wonder how much longer Hamlet would have delayed in killing Claudius had his mother not consumed the poisoned wine; this obviously was a big factor in Hamlets final action to kill Claudius. In the end Hamlet keeps his cool as though being okay with the coming of death, noting that he is being punished for killing Polonius.
The theme within these acts is revenge/friendship. Throughout these scenes we see friendships hold on such as that of Hamlet and Horatio, and the relationship quickly obtained between Claudius and Laertes. The revenge which was a constant want between many characters finally plays out within these final acts. Laertes completes his revenge when he cuts Hamlet with his poisonous blade and avenges his father’s murder. But before dieing from the poison Hamlet finally completes his and his dead father’s wishes by killing Claudius. Hamlet then goes on to tell Horatio that he wishes to have Fortinbras become the new ruler of Denmark.
Hamlet of course was a major character throughout both of these acts. He is first sent away to England, where Claudius was going to have him murdered, but Hamlet devised a scheme to go back to the castle. So we can see that he is very much sane and not crazy at all. Then with the sudden understanding of Ophelia’s death, Hamlet confesses to being in love with Ophelia. I wonder whether Ophelia would have still gone crazy and killed herself if Hamlet would have confessed his love to her in the beginning. I also wonder how much longer Hamlet would have delayed in killing Claudius had his mother not consumed the poisoned wine; this obviously was a big factor in Hamlets final action to kill Claudius. In the end Hamlet keeps his cool as though being okay with the coming of death, noting that he is being punished for killing Polonius.
The theme within these acts is revenge/friendship. Throughout these scenes we see friendships hold on such as that of Hamlet and Horatio, and the relationship quickly obtained between Claudius and Laertes. The revenge which was a constant want between many characters finally plays out within these final acts. Laertes completes his revenge when he cuts Hamlet with his poisonous blade and avenges his father’s murder. But before dieing from the poison Hamlet finally completes his and his dead father’s wishes by killing Claudius. Hamlet then goes on to tell Horatio that he wishes to have Fortinbras become the new ruler of Denmark.
Friday, March 18, 2011
DRJ#3 Hamlet, ACT III
There were tons of scheming conducted within this act, first with Polonius and the King spying on Hamlet to determine his feelings for Ophelia, which ends with Hamlet renouncing his love for Ophelia and marriage in general. The next scene Hamlet plots to determine the truth about his uncle’s actions by having the players act out a story which was very similar to his father’s death. Through this Hamlet identifies the truth, and we get to see the torment going on within Claudius over killing his brother. All of this reminded me of high school girls scheming and potting to make others miserable.
The character that stands out to me within this act is Claudius. Within this act we not only get to see how obsessed he is about finding out what is bothering Hamlet, but also we get to have a glimpse of the truth. After viewing the play put together by Hamlet, Claudius demands the lights to be turned back on while he leaves the room in a huff. Through this Hamlet becomes positive that his uncle did kill his father, and we get to see Claudius admit to the murder of his brother. He obviously let his greed and selfishness get into the way, allowing it to control his actions while he killed his brother. I only say this because of the torment that was seen while Claudius was alone and praying for forgiveness.
This act is full of guilt/sin. This is first seen with the conduct that Hamlet shows against poor Ophelia, telling her that he had never loved her but then telling her that he had loved her. He was very hypocritical. Then later he acts very aggressive and rude making sexual comments towards her throughout the play. We also get to see Claudius’s guilt because of his sins commented toward his brother. Having seen what he did within the play seemed to break Claudius enough for us to see the torment going on inside him while he is alone and praying for forgiveness for his sins. The last scene was full of guilt and sin as Hamlet pretty much let’s his mother have it, causing her to look at herself and her hasty actions of marriage to Claudius. Finally we see Hamlets sin again when he hastily and blindingly kills someone behind the arras or tapestry in his mothers room. He was hoping that it was Claudius, but turned out to be Polonius.
The character that stands out to me within this act is Claudius. Within this act we not only get to see how obsessed he is about finding out what is bothering Hamlet, but also we get to have a glimpse of the truth. After viewing the play put together by Hamlet, Claudius demands the lights to be turned back on while he leaves the room in a huff. Through this Hamlet becomes positive that his uncle did kill his father, and we get to see Claudius admit to the murder of his brother. He obviously let his greed and selfishness get into the way, allowing it to control his actions while he killed his brother. I only say this because of the torment that was seen while Claudius was alone and praying for forgiveness.
This act is full of guilt/sin. This is first seen with the conduct that Hamlet shows against poor Ophelia, telling her that he had never loved her but then telling her that he had loved her. He was very hypocritical. Then later he acts very aggressive and rude making sexual comments towards her throughout the play. We also get to see Claudius’s guilt because of his sins commented toward his brother. Having seen what he did within the play seemed to break Claudius enough for us to see the torment going on inside him while he is alone and praying for forgiveness for his sins. The last scene was full of guilt and sin as Hamlet pretty much let’s his mother have it, causing her to look at herself and her hasty actions of marriage to Claudius. Finally we see Hamlets sin again when he hastily and blindingly kills someone behind the arras or tapestry in his mothers room. He was hoping that it was Claudius, but turned out to be Polonius.
Friday, March 11, 2011
DRJ #2: Hamlet, Act II
Within Act II of Hamlet, the plot begins to branch out as a wide variety of spying and instigating is taking place between various characters. Within scene 1 Polonius sends his servant Reynaldo to spy on his son Laertes to see how he has been behaving while in France. Then in scene 2, the King and Queen bring in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to spy on Hamlet to see why he is still acting so melancholy. Polonius then comes into the scene expressing that Hamlet’s love for his daughter is the reason for his crazy behavior, because of this the Kind and Polonius conspire to spy on Hamlet, while left alone with Ophelia, to identify his true feelings for her. The whole while Hamlet is playing everyone, making them all think that he is truly mad. But with Hamlet’s smart observations as described within the final scene, we know that Hamlet truly isn’t mad at all.
The character that stood out to me within this Act would have to be Polonius. At this point within the story Polonius is beginning to be viewed more as an antagonist than simply a foil, having to be involved in other people business and know what everyone is up to. He is definitely a busy body within this Act. Both scene one and two had Polonius present, within scene one Polonius sends his servant to spy on his son who is currently in France, the only reason for this would be for Polonius to know his son’s actions while being in France. Then in scene two Polonius suggest to the King that they spy on Hamlet to help identify Hamlet’s feeling for Ophelia. When this idea doesn’t work, Polonius continues to keep a close watch on Hamlet whenever he is present within the scene.
One of the themes viewed within this Act is madness. Hamlet did a wonderful job of making everyone around him think that he was mad, first shown with his conversation with Polonius in the castle. Hamlet first refers to Polonius as a “fishmonger” (1619), then jumping from one notation to another, speaking about honest men and then changing to conversation asking if Polonius has a daughter. Of course he has been acting mad before this point within the story as everyone around him is trying to identify the root of Hamlet’s madness.
The character that stood out to me within this Act would have to be Polonius. At this point within the story Polonius is beginning to be viewed more as an antagonist than simply a foil, having to be involved in other people business and know what everyone is up to. He is definitely a busy body within this Act. Both scene one and two had Polonius present, within scene one Polonius sends his servant to spy on his son who is currently in France, the only reason for this would be for Polonius to know his son’s actions while being in France. Then in scene two Polonius suggest to the King that they spy on Hamlet to help identify Hamlet’s feeling for Ophelia. When this idea doesn’t work, Polonius continues to keep a close watch on Hamlet whenever he is present within the scene.
One of the themes viewed within this Act is madness. Hamlet did a wonderful job of making everyone around him think that he was mad, first shown with his conversation with Polonius in the castle. Hamlet first refers to Polonius as a “fishmonger” (1619), then jumping from one notation to another, speaking about honest men and then changing to conversation asking if Polonius has a daughter. Of course he has been acting mad before this point within the story as everyone around him is trying to identify the root of Hamlet’s madness.
Friday, March 4, 2011
DRJ#1 ACT I
Horatio, Marcellus, and Bernardo remind me of three close and devoted friends willing to do anything or Hamlet. These characters remind me of the Dogberry, Verges, and Sexton within “Much Ado about Nothing”. These three were quirky, good hearted, and willing to serve.
Out of the three characters, Horatio stuck out the most to me. I think it was because from the start he seemed to be the leader of the three friends; Horatio, Marcellus, and Bernardo. He was the rash, calm person who had no problem trying to communicate with the ghost from the start. He definitely appeared to be the most educated.
Most of the conversations presented when Hamlet was speaking to the ghost were between Hamlet and Horatio. If Horatio hadn’t been there then there would have been a gap in the story. I think that Horatio was used as a foil to help develop Hamlet.
I thin that the main theme within Act I was love/family/friendship. The Friendship is represented by Horatio, Marcellus, and Bernardo recognizing the ghost as being the late king, Hamlet’s father. The three of them felt that it was important to have their friend Hamlet speak with the ghost incase it truly was the deceased king with a message for Hamlet. Later the three of them went out late at night with Hamlet as he looked for the ghost, all of which tried to insist to remain with Hamlet to ensure that nothing happened to him. The family was presented with the depictions of Hamlets mother, uncle, and father. You can feel the closeness that Hamlet has for his family, striving to do right by each of them. First shown with his mother and her request that Hamlet stay behind from school “I pray thee, stay with us; go not to Wittenberg” (page 1587), and Hamlet replies noting that he would do his best to obey her. Then when the ghost comes, Hamlet promises yet again to his father’s ghost that he would “sweep” to his revenge.
Out of the three characters, Horatio stuck out the most to me. I think it was because from the start he seemed to be the leader of the three friends; Horatio, Marcellus, and Bernardo. He was the rash, calm person who had no problem trying to communicate with the ghost from the start. He definitely appeared to be the most educated.
Most of the conversations presented when Hamlet was speaking to the ghost were between Hamlet and Horatio. If Horatio hadn’t been there then there would have been a gap in the story. I think that Horatio was used as a foil to help develop Hamlet.
I thin that the main theme within Act I was love/family/friendship. The Friendship is represented by Horatio, Marcellus, and Bernardo recognizing the ghost as being the late king, Hamlet’s father. The three of them felt that it was important to have their friend Hamlet speak with the ghost incase it truly was the deceased king with a message for Hamlet. Later the three of them went out late at night with Hamlet as he looked for the ghost, all of which tried to insist to remain with Hamlet to ensure that nothing happened to him. The family was presented with the depictions of Hamlets mother, uncle, and father. You can feel the closeness that Hamlet has for his family, striving to do right by each of them. First shown with his mother and her request that Hamlet stay behind from school “I pray thee, stay with us; go not to Wittenberg” (page 1587), and Hamlet replies noting that he would do his best to obey her. Then when the ghost comes, Hamlet promises yet again to his father’s ghost that he would “sweep” to his revenge.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
CCTWQ#11 Hemingway
I have never been away from my native home for a long enough time to ever feel alienated from it. I have although visited other areas to which the culture and way of life is different from what I am accustom to. Being within this atmosphere, you don’t know exactly how to act. You almost have this overcome desire to try and fit in and so take part within the customs and behavior of those around you.
Our surroundings and relationships are what make us who we are. So being around others and their cultures causes a person to relate and adapt in order to fit in which in turn causes us to become alienated our native home.
Within Hemingway’s story “Soldier’s Home”, Krebs underwent this very change. He because accustom to his surroundings in Germany and so became an alien to his native home in Kansas. Not ever experiencing this myself, it was very easy to say that Krebs simply needed to move on. I know that everything was different for him, but it was as though he didn’t very hard to fit back into his native life style.
Our surroundings and relationships are what make us who we are. So being around others and their cultures causes a person to relate and adapt in order to fit in which in turn causes us to become alienated our native home.
Within Hemingway’s story “Soldier’s Home”, Krebs underwent this very change. He because accustom to his surroundings in Germany and so became an alien to his native home in Kansas. Not ever experiencing this myself, it was very easy to say that Krebs simply needed to move on. I know that everything was different for him, but it was as though he didn’t very hard to fit back into his native life style.
CCTWQ#8 Walker
I would place the below paragraph within paragraphs 24 and 25, directly after the groom kisses his bride.
This is it, the rush of relief and victory fills his body like a title wave as he turns to face the crowd embracing his new wife’s hand. Finally, after all the promises and re-assurance of love, she is mine, my wife. As they slowly move into the crowd, he lets go of her hand, getting swallowed into the crowd of people. He feels the eyes of her family piercing through his very being, judging and questioning why he is not more like them. He wants to go, leaving them behind so he can start his life with his new family, and not have the pressures of her family burdening his choices of life style and beliefs. It’s time to go home
This is it, the rush of relief and victory fills his body like a title wave as he turns to face the crowd embracing his new wife’s hand. Finally, after all the promises and re-assurance of love, she is mine, my wife. As they slowly move into the crowd, he lets go of her hand, getting swallowed into the crowd of people. He feels the eyes of her family piercing through his very being, judging and questioning why he is not more like them. He wants to go, leaving them behind so he can start his life with his new family, and not have the pressures of her family burdening his choices of life style and beliefs. It’s time to go home
Friday, February 18, 2011
SSRJ#4 Carver
The story “Popular Mechanics” made me feel both angry at the main characters and sad for the child caught in the middle of the fight. Both characters within the story were very selfish individuals who obviously cared only of themselves. This story made me think of King Solomon in I Kings, except in this story you are provided with two selfish characters and a sad ending.
Through the story we see how selfishness and spite cause the two characters to end-up hurting the one thing that they both love the most. Through the argument described in paragraph 6 through 9, we see that both the man and woman care for the baby. Unfortunately, they let their anger and spitefulness get in the way as they physically fight over the child, both in denial that either could be hurting the baby. This shows a good form of dramatic irony as both characters are in denial as to what is actually occurring.
Near the end, the author describes the woman holding onto the baby’s wrist and leaned back as the man, feeling the baby slipping from him, tugs back the opposite direction very hard. Although the author never specifies how the issue was resolved, when I read this I automatically assumed that the child was killed through the fighting, leaving neither with their much wanted reward. Considering the actions of both the man and the woman, how do you feel the issue was resolved? Do you think that this fight could have been avoided had the woman let he man take the photograph within paragraph 6?
Through the story we see how selfishness and spite cause the two characters to end-up hurting the one thing that they both love the most. Through the argument described in paragraph 6 through 9, we see that both the man and woman care for the baby. Unfortunately, they let their anger and spitefulness get in the way as they physically fight over the child, both in denial that either could be hurting the baby. This shows a good form of dramatic irony as both characters are in denial as to what is actually occurring.
Near the end, the author describes the woman holding onto the baby’s wrist and leaned back as the man, feeling the baby slipping from him, tugs back the opposite direction very hard. Although the author never specifies how the issue was resolved, when I read this I automatically assumed that the child was killed through the fighting, leaving neither with their much wanted reward. Considering the actions of both the man and the woman, how do you feel the issue was resolved? Do you think that this fight could have been avoided had the woman let he man take the photograph within paragraph 6?
Thursday, February 10, 2011
SSRJ#3 D.Walker
I was very intrigued by this story, I absolutely loved it. From the beginning I was pulled into the characters life and feelings. I could imagine how he was feeling landing in Vietnam
One of the main literary devices used through out this story is setting. The main character began with tormenting memories to which he may have never gotten over if he hadn’t gone to Vietnam
I feel as though it was hard to place Dinh within this story. Obviously, he was a stern, tuff person who seemed to be admiring of the narrator. Considering that Dinh is a professional surgeon, or was, how do you think he felt when the wrapping was removed from his dead thumb? He had to know the chances of this happening, and the risk in conducting such a surgery within the facility, so why take the risk?
Thursday, February 3, 2011
SSJ#2_ Hemingway
I found this story to be very interesting. Initially, I felt sorry for the soldier because he didn’t receive the recognition to which he deserved. It was as though everyone in his town had already welcomed the majority of the soldier’s home and really didn’t care to pay him any time or attention that he needed. By the middle of the story I was starting to feel as though he had given-up and everyone around him allowed it. But by the end I was glad to see him go and watch his sister play indoor baseball. I think this showed that Krebs was willing to start a new life, but only a step at a time. This story made me remember my grandfather whom I was very close to. He served in the military for several years, as did my uncle. Thankfully neither of them had to go to war.
The literary element of the story is of course setting as the entire story bases around a soldier returning to his home in Kansas. But I also feel that Character study element was also used within the story to provide a picture of the soldier, his life, and demeanor. We could tell that he was a soldier coming home from Germany two years after most of the other soldiers. The photograph in paragraph two give you a good idea of his size and stature, and the way that he acted throughout the story tells that he had lost his ambition but still had a love for his family.
During the story it is described that Krebs father had a car to which he cherished and wouldn’t ever let him drive it, but at the end of the story Krebs mother told him that his father gave him permission to drive the car. I think that it was their way of finally respecting him as an adult. It seamed to me that Krebs had been home for sometime before his father decided to allow him to drive the car, why do you think it took his father so long?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)