It has been decided: pregnant Christina and Vittorio Innocente are moving to Canada. Though the more appropriate question would be whom are they going to? Up until now it was believed that Christina was moving with her two children to Canada, in hopes of living with her long-gone husband. Howbeit, this quotation proved otherwise.
"'You're not going to him,' my uncle said, barely audible. 'I saw it in your eyes the moment I came in.' But my mother turned away. 'Vittorio, damn it, I told you to go in to your grandfather.' I hovered a moment by the table; but my mother rose suddenly and prodded me with an abrupt push into my grandfather's room. As we came in my grandfather's eyes shot sharply towards her; but she stepped out of the room almost at once, closing the door behind her." pg187
This passages discloses that Christina will be sharing her new life with her lover, not husband. Personally I don't believe that it was a shock to her father, solely due to her antagonistic behaviour. Once Vittorio enters his grandfather's room, his grandfather says to him "I hope to God that she doesn't ruin your life the way she has ruined hers." Unfortunately due to Vito's innocence and vulnerability he does not know what is going on. Whether fortunately or not, Christina dies on the ship to Canada, never reaching her destination. Her betrayals and lies have finally come to a halt.
Showing posts with label by olivia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label by olivia. Show all posts
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
BEATEN.
In the beginning of the novel we are introduced to Fabrizio, Vito's best friend. The two boys spend their days smoking cigarettes and rebelling against their childhood. Unfortunately, we soon realize that Fabrizio is no ordinary boy. His defiant mannerisms are evidently portrayed because of his fathers actions towards him, literally.
"'Looking for Fabrizio eh?' he said, catching my glance as I passed. 'He's got a broken ass.' The boys around him laughed." pg.95
This quotation is expressed by Fabrizio's brother Fulvio in a laughing manner; more importantly, it shares with the reader that Fabrizio is getting physically abused by his father. Not only has he lost an abundance of weight, but he has also been taken out of school to work in the fields. Regardless of his age, Vittorio stops visiting Fabrizio because he cannot bear the sight of seeing his good friend being beaten.
Though this may not seem to have a dramatic impact on Vittorio's life, it most definitely reveals an aspect to his personality. Through this we see that Vito is very aware. Vittorio is a caring, young boy who does not want to witness anymore pain in his life. He lacks confidence and nerve. Personally, I believe that his mother is to blame for this.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
The Snake That Sought Revenge
"'Mamma's been bitten by a snake!' I yelled out. The village women who had come out after siesta to knit on their front steps stared after me as I ran; others popped their heads out of doorways and over balconies." pg 9
This passage within "Lives of the Saints" by Nino Ricci discloses the predominant occurrence in the beginning of the novel that contours the rest of the plot. Incipiently, seven-year-old Vittorio Innocente proclaims to the village people that his mother Christina Innocente has been bitten by a snake. Valle De Sole, the village where the story takes places, is a village that is morphed by its superstitions and religion. The snake symbolizes both evil and temptation. Subsequently to the snake bite, Christina is cursed. She acts abnormally. Her proud nature disallows her to compromise with her family and she winds up alienating herself from society. Most importantly, she was also with her lover at the time of the bite. An Italian myth proclaims that if you are bitten at the time of an affair; you will birth a child with a head of a snake. From this point on in the novel, Christina's stubborn habits perturb her son Vito traumatically.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Does Happiness Come From Within You?
“She had felt that love was a beautiful flower but not for her to touch, though its fragrance made the garden a place of delight.”(59)
One of Helen Keller’s mentor’s was Alexander Graham Bell; the inventor of the telephone. Dr. Bell had also dealt with deaf conflictions within his family and that is where his curiosity for the deaf began. He had met Helen when she was just a little girl and they continued to remain in contact as Helen grew older. Several times Helen had accompanied him to his conventions which embraced the deaf in order to further their learning in speech. Throughout these conventions the two would engage in conversations and at one point in time Dr. Bell told her that should the occasion ever arise, she should not hesitate to marry. He went on to tell her that her case was not hereditary and that there was hope. Yet despite all of his willingness Helen felt as if marrying her would be like “marrying a statue.” (59) Keller didn’t want to someone be burdened with the obligation of taking care of her. Helen had only been in love once and unfortunately that never ended as planned.
The question that I must ask myself now is, is it possible to be elderly, alone and happy? Though I’m not in the position to answer this question my instinct tells me no. I feel as if one could never be happy because they would have no one to share their happiness with. Anyone care to add to this question?
Illumination
"The upshot of Swedenborg's teaching was that the essence of divine life is love and that men are dead unless they are animated by it. Without love they are in a state of spiritual death, while abandonment of self is another name for heaven and self-will is the cause of the torment of hell." pg 101
Van Wyck Brooks, author of Sketch for a Portrait, makes many references to past philosophers, important figures and knowledgeable people. Perhaps the most influential person in Helen Keller’s life which was remarked to in the novel was Emanuel Swedenborg. Swedenborg was a philosopher more than anything. His main objective was to “make Christianity a living reality upon earth” (100) He was a firm believer in the spiritual sense, which claimed to present no difficulty.
In the chapter “My Religion” Helen Keller, the native Catholic, observed different aspects of the religious world and admits that the Bible is something which she could not come to terms with. It baffled her, even though she was naturally a strong believer in God. Ms. Keller longed for a “practical religion” (98) which strived to perfect man and depend on love. Both Swedenborg and Keller had undergone an “illumination” which defined their devotion to this practical belief. For Helen it was the kindle which showed her the world of acquired knowledge. Opposed to this idea was Anne Sullivan who had no religion at all. Notwithstanding, Helen continued to look deeper in this new religion. She felt that Swedenborg had not made a new Bible, but had “made the Bible all new to her.”
Sunday, November 28, 2010
The Impact of Water: Metamorphosis
Helen Keller: Sketch for a Portrait
"Within a month the vixen, the furious little termagant, had been transformed into a gentle child, contentedly stringing her beads and serenely crocheting, revealing already what Anne called the beautiful intelligence that she was to spend years developing with the unheard-of devotion."
The revelation of Helen Keller's life is not one to be hidden. This quote discloses something very interesting; Helen Keller was not always a devoted and well-behaved child. In fact, she was quite the opposite. As a young child Helen became very sick and was left with a permanent scar. She was to remain blind and deaf for eternity. Due to such a harsh destiny her parents offered her the world and let her do as she pleased. Her actions unfortunately were not always well presented. Through tamper-tantrums Helen would achieve her way,that is until Anne Sullivan entered her life.
Anne Sullivan was Helen's personal teacher, who herself had defected eye vision. Anne struggled dreadfully with Helen in order to teach her respect and discipline. Moreover, Helen did not understand that words existed and could be used to comprehend situations and life. It was clear though that Helen was very bright because she seemed to repeat letters very quickly. Anne had tried to spell words into Helen's hand and connect them with objects, but sadly there were no resuts. Nothing seemed to work until one day when Anne had stuck Helen's hand under a water pump and vigorously spelled W-A-T-E-R into it.
At that very moment, Helen paused. Suddenly she had realized that words were tools used in forms of communication. Helen had spent the rest of her day memorizing and absorbing whatever she possibly could. From this very instant Helen's life was about to dramatically change for the better. For five years Helen had been isolated and left in the shawdows of her own life. This astounding experience had opened the gates for Helen, unleashed the barriers that lead her to escape the silence.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Monday, September 13, 2010
which language shall you speak in?: Assignment 2
“I said that there was a language for each attitude, and that these languages appear in our society as the languages of ordinary conversation, the language of practical skills, and the language of literature.” (pg 17)
This quotation synthesizes one of Frye’s main objectives in this chapter “The Singing School.” Before this opinionated judgement Frye refers back to his “shipwrecked island” situation of which he spoke about in the first chapter. This quotation is simply a reminder of what he had previously stated. I find this quote rather odd and different, possibly because I’ve never thought about it before. The three attitudes to which Northrop Frye refers to are: a state of awareness in which you notice that you may be alone, an attitude in which you begin to create a “human way” of living in an isolated situation and finally an attitude of imagination, one in which you generate your own world. As Frye adds meaning to this, he labels each attitude with a language, and that is the quotation that I chose. At first glance I think I may attempt to comprehend what his main message may be, but the more I read it over I realize that I’m not sure how to distinguish between these languages. For instance, when someone speaks to you, you don’t say “oh that’s the language of practical skills!” Possibly I just think too rationally to understand this. Though I don’t’ understand the true meaning behind this, I doubtfully have few assumptions. Maybe when Frye differentiates between these languages he means how you say things or write them, or maybe the tone used in the context, maybe I’m totally wrong, or maybe I’m completely right. Any thoughts?????
This quotation synthesizes one of Frye’s main objectives in this chapter “The Singing School.” Before this opinionated judgement Frye refers back to his “shipwrecked island” situation of which he spoke about in the first chapter. This quotation is simply a reminder of what he had previously stated. I find this quote rather odd and different, possibly because I’ve never thought about it before. The three attitudes to which Northrop Frye refers to are: a state of awareness in which you notice that you may be alone, an attitude in which you begin to create a “human way” of living in an isolated situation and finally an attitude of imagination, one in which you generate your own world. As Frye adds meaning to this, he labels each attitude with a language, and that is the quotation that I chose. At first glance I think I may attempt to comprehend what his main message may be, but the more I read it over I realize that I’m not sure how to distinguish between these languages. For instance, when someone speaks to you, you don’t say “oh that’s the language of practical skills!” Possibly I just think too rationally to understand this. Though I don’t’ understand the true meaning behind this, I doubtfully have few assumptions. Maybe when Frye differentiates between these languages he means how you say things or write them, or maybe the tone used in the context, maybe I’m totally wrong, or maybe I’m completely right. Any thoughts?????
Sunday, September 12, 2010
“Literature doesn’t evolve or improve or progress.”
"Literature doesn't evolve or improve or progress."
Northrop Frye aims to prove a point that literature, as we know it today, is not going to advance. He claims that even though every era could potentially produce their own masterpieces they will neither be more dramatic nor well written than the classics. By classics Frye refers to King Lear and Oedipus Rex (pg 10) for examples. The reasonng behind this statement is supported by various examples concerning poet's works in different time frames. For instance, Whitman's work is compared to that of Dante's. Frye explains that even though the times and economic standings have changed, the historic literature produced by Dante should not be under minded to Whitman's comprehendible work (pg 10.) Northrop Frye often speaks abou and compares the quality of literature concerning the epoch. Frye also contrasts the changes of science and literature. On page nine, two truly valid points are expressed. "Science learns more and more about the world as it evolves and improves." And soon after Frye includes "But literature begins with the possible model of experience, and what it produces is the literary model we call the classic." (pg 9) These two opinions are nothing less than the honest truth. I believe that Frye is once again attempting to reach out and exclaim how important it is to remember the history of literature. He expresses that with science there is always something new to discover and gain control of, but with literature there is no more "new." Notable methods of writing have already been written. When writing, you write with the rest of the authors on your shoulder's. You may only express your words in a way that you have witnessed. By "witnessed" I'm refering to something you have read or listened to. Literature is a building block process in which you contribute to, in hopes of attempting to achieve something real, something classic. With such a constant reminder of science throughout this chapter I am forced to believe that Frye wants to express that English is just as important to this world as science is. He models th two subjects on the same pedestal. In good conscience I read this quote and immediately did not agree. I thought that Professor Frye did not have the right to judge the future, where literature would take us. But I was wrong. I have realized that I do agree with his legitimate opinion. Mind you, I agree when he states "evolves" but not when he writes "progresses." I don't attach the word to the standing of good literature, rather ideas. My view on this thought is that a writer's progress in their ideas using their imagination. People's imaginations evolve. Most authors are forced to mask the painful process of writing with new ideas because they know that their writing will never be up to par with the writing by the "classical" authors. With all of the new technology today our imaginations have no choice but to develop new ideas and plots for literature. That is why I believe that the only place literature evolves is within a single human as they evolve. Simply: The idea changes, not the style. Perhaps I am wrong but at this moment in time it's how I feel. The connections with this quote and the speech by McCullough "The Love of Learning" are quite profound. McCullough said "We're all what we've read to a very considerable degree" and that is something I agree with. I previously expressed the same thought, and it is true! We cannot be but slightly different than what we know and feel comfortable with. However in relations to the quote by Frye the quotation with the most significance is "Read your country's history. How can we profess to love our country and take no interest in its history?" This quotation supports the idea of appreciating ancient and modern literture. Just as Frye defined within Chapter 1 of his lecture, you must learn to love the "possible model of experience" with in turn produces "the literary model we call the classic." (pg 9)
- glitter sparx
Northrop Frye aims to prove a point that literature, as we know it today, is not going to advance. He claims that even though every era could potentially produce their own masterpieces they will neither be more dramatic nor well written than the classics. By classics Frye refers to King Lear and Oedipus Rex (pg 10) for examples. The reasonng behind this statement is supported by various examples concerning poet's works in different time frames. For instance, Whitman's work is compared to that of Dante's. Frye explains that even though the times and economic standings have changed, the historic literature produced by Dante should not be under minded to Whitman's comprehendible work (pg 10.) Northrop Frye often speaks abou and compares the quality of literature concerning the epoch. Frye also contrasts the changes of science and literature. On page nine, two truly valid points are expressed. "Science learns more and more about the world as it evolves and improves." And soon after Frye includes "But literature begins with the possible model of experience, and what it produces is the literary model we call the classic." (pg 9) These two opinions are nothing less than the honest truth. I believe that Frye is once again attempting to reach out and exclaim how important it is to remember the history of literature. He expresses that with science there is always something new to discover and gain control of, but with literature there is no more "new." Notable methods of writing have already been written. When writing, you write with the rest of the authors on your shoulder's. You may only express your words in a way that you have witnessed. By "witnessed" I'm refering to something you have read or listened to. Literature is a building block process in which you contribute to, in hopes of attempting to achieve something real, something classic. With such a constant reminder of science throughout this chapter I am forced to believe that Frye wants to express that English is just as important to this world as science is. He models th two subjects on the same pedestal. In good conscience I read this quote and immediately did not agree. I thought that Professor Frye did not have the right to judge the future, where literature would take us. But I was wrong. I have realized that I do agree with his legitimate opinion. Mind you, I agree when he states "evolves" but not when he writes "progresses." I don't attach the word to the standing of good literature, rather ideas. My view on this thought is that a writer's progress in their ideas using their imagination. People's imaginations evolve. Most authors are forced to mask the painful process of writing with new ideas because they know that their writing will never be up to par with the writing by the "classical" authors. With all of the new technology today our imaginations have no choice but to develop new ideas and plots for literature. That is why I believe that the only place literature evolves is within a single human as they evolve. Simply: The idea changes, not the style. Perhaps I am wrong but at this moment in time it's how I feel. The connections with this quote and the speech by McCullough "The Love of Learning" are quite profound. McCullough said "We're all what we've read to a very considerable degree" and that is something I agree with. I previously expressed the same thought, and it is true! We cannot be but slightly different than what we know and feel comfortable with. However in relations to the quote by Frye the quotation with the most significance is "Read your country's history. How can we profess to love our country and take no interest in its history?" This quotation supports the idea of appreciating ancient and modern literture. Just as Frye defined within Chapter 1 of his lecture, you must learn to love the "possible model of experience" with in turn produces "the literary model we call the classic." (pg 9)
- glitter sparx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)