Izzie’s Comments (group member since May 14, 2016)

Izzie’s comments from the Mills AP Lit and Comp group.

Izzie Hicks
period 2

Oh, beware, my lord, of jealousy!
It is the green-eyed monster which doth mock
The meat it feeds on. That cuckold lives in bliss
Who, certain of his fate, loves not his wronger,
But, oh, what damnèd minutes tells he o'er
Who dotes, yet doubts— suspects, yet soundly loves!

This verse of Shakespeare is from Act 3 Scene 3 of his play Othello. A man named Iago speaks these wise words about jealousy, discussing some key points that are still applicable today. The “green-eyed monster” (2) he speaks of pertains to jealousy, which, he goes on to explains, “doth mock the meat it feeds on” (2-3), meaning it makes fun of the person with jealous feelings. This idea is a concept still prominent today, because a jealous person often looks foolish due to their inability to hide their envious feelings. Iago goes on to say that a man who knows his wife is cheating on him is still happy because he isn’t friends with her new lover, therefore he’s not jealous and “lives in bliss” (3). To contrast, a man deeply in love with his wife, but suspects her cheating on him, will never be happy because of his inability to control his jealousness. Shakespeare writes this verse in his play Othello, exploring the concept of jealously in examples still relevant today.

Gianna wrote: "Gianna Neathammer Period 2

In the novel Great Expectations, Charles Dickens contradicting endings spawn an ongoing debate. Personally, I emotionally connect with the more positive outcome of the ..."

I agree with the fact that the published ending is emotionally superior to the original ending and I liked the way you were able to draw these connections to the rest of the book. As a whole, I would have to disagree with you that Pip better fits into this "romantic" ending because of the fact that he is a sensitive character-- I think the whole idea behind what makes the published ending so controversial is that in it of itself it doesn't fit with Pip as a character. Dickens wrote the original ending to better fit with Pip's character arc and expectations that were shown throughout the novel, and I would argue that the original goes better with the ideas the author previously established. However, all of your other points about how the published ending was more emotionally and aesthetically satisfying to reader were completely valid.

Izzie Hicks period 2

Reflecting on changing his ending for Great Expectations, Charles Dickens writes in a letter: “I have put in as pretty a little piece of writing as I could, and I have no doubt the story will be more acceptable through the alteration”. Throughout the years, as the book has been widely read, critics have debated whether the original or published ending is better suited for the novel. Dickens’ reflection on his own work is accurate: the published ending is superior, acting as more emotionally and aesthetically pleasing for the reader.

In comparison to the original, the published ending is better written and feels less abrupt to the reader. The description of both the symbols of the mist and the garden at the Satis House leave the reader feeling as if they’re coming full circle; there is no mention of either of these in the original ending. Describing the day as “a cold silvery mist had veiled the afternoon, and the moon was not yet up to scatter it” (513-514) shows imagery that is fitting to the rest of the book, whereas in the original ending there is no description of the external. This technique feels jutting and unbelievable compared to the rest of the book, which is brimming with imagery. Similarly, the briefness of the original makes it feel rushed--the published ending is less abrupt and thusly more so fits with the writing style of the rest of the book. Additionally the second ending offers more closure. It hints that Pip ends up with Estella, while the original ending makes no suggestion of who Pip might marry, ultimately leading the reader to believe he will be alone all of his life. Estella and Pip ending up together not only makes sense and is emotionally satisfying to the reader, but it also opens up more potential character growth. The original ending leaves both Pip and Estella feeling stagnate, as if their character arcs have completely ended and they will cease existing as people--not what a satisfying ending should do. Dickens’ reflective way of writing the published ending also channels closure. We get to see both characters reflect on their past; for example, Estella discloses she often thought of Pip, saying “Of late, very often. There was a long hard time when I kept far from me, the remembrance, of what I had thrown away when I was quite ignorant of its worth” (514). The reflective attitude of this ending better summarizes the book and allows the reader to digest what they have read.

Finally, while the original makes no mention of it, the published ending includes the symbol of the decaying Satis house. Described as “There was no house now, no brewery, no building left, but the wall of the old garden. The cleared space had been enclosed with a rough fence, and, looking over it, I saw that some of the old ivy had struck root anew, and was growing green on low quiet mounds of ruin” (514) the reader is able to understand the full meaning of this symbol. Wealth is impermanent and always fluctuating, so the once-beautiful Satis house is now disintegrating into something ignored and uncared for. Wealth’s lack of importance is an idea Pip discovers throughout the book, but the published ending allows Dickens to really drive this point home.
In summary, although both endings have strengths, the edited and published ending of Charles Dickens’ Great Expectations is superior to the original versions for an array of reasons, including its writing style, the closure it offers, and its inclusion of important symbols.

Izzie Hicks period 2

Literary realism and distortion are popular techniques used by novelists. As opposites, an author must make a choice as to which element he or she feels would work best with his or her work. In his novel Great Expectations, Charles Dickens utilizes distorted elements to help portray central themes and contribute to the effectiveness of the work. A distorted element in the novel is the protagonist Pip’s perception of the wealthy and distinctions between social classes. Pip’s ideas revolving this change throughout the story, shown to the reader through his love for Estella and the internal flaws of wealthy characters. In all, these elements work to portray one of Dickens’ central themes: wealth is constantly fluctuating, and despite how important it may seem to attain it, being a good person with integrity and a desire to better oneself is more critical.

Pip’s choice to love Estella over Biddy shows his lust to join the wealthy and become a gentleman. Despite the fact that Estella is bitter, rude, and raised to break her suitors’ hearts, Pip is infatuated with her over the course the novel, even when he knows Biddy would be better for him. He says, “Biddy was never insulting, or capricious, or Biddy to-day—and somebody else to-morrow; she would have derived only pain, and no pleasure, from giving me pain; she would far rather have wounded her own breast than mine. How could it be, then, that I did not like her the much better of the two?” (130-131). Pip’s choice of Estella shows his romantic perception of the upper class. He essentially views wealth as perfection, saying that “I loved Estella...against reason, against promise, against peace, against hope, against happiness...I loved her none the less because I knew it, and it had to be more influence in restraining me, than if I had devoutly believed her to be human perfection” (253-254). Pip’s obsession is so immense throughout most of the novel that it is evident Dickens chose to distort it. However, Pip’s choice towards the end ultimately showcases the theme: with his captivation of the upper class and Estella dispersed, he decides to go home and marry Biddy. Even though she has already chose to marry Joe, this action portrays Dickens’ theme involving the importance of character over wealth. In addition, the juxtaposition of the wealthy and poor character’s morals is a distortion that helps drive Dickens’ theme. The majority of the upper class characters, including Bentley Drummle, Miss Havisham, and Estella, all are internally flawed despite their respected outside appearances. Pip describes Bentley Drummle as “proud, niggardly, reserved, and suspicious. He came of rich people down in Somersetshire, who had nursed this combination of qualities until they made the discovery that it was just of age and a blockhead” (212). In contrast, the poor characters in the novel are inherently good, such as Magwitch—who gave Pip his fortune even when he came from a lower class than Pip—and Joe, who is a “mild, good-natured, sweet-tempered, easy going” (6) man of commoner class. Dickens’ choice to compare the wealthy and poor characters in such a way is an distortion because inherently not all wealthy people are evil and not all poor people kind-hearted. He chooses to exaggerate in a way that helps the reader see his theme.

Overall, distortion is a technique that increases the effectiveness of the work; in Flannery O'Connor's words, it’s the only way to “make people see”. Dickens uses distortion in Great Expectations to expose the reader to his theme that being a good person is more important than attaining wealth, a value that Pip discovers throughout the course of the novel.

Izzie Hicks
Period 2
The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald has many illuminating incidents that allow the reader to see a casement of the literature, a window that opens onto the meaning of the work as a whole. In essence one of the most prominent illuminating incidents is Daisy, Tom, and Gatsby's argument in the hotel room and Daisy ultimately choosing her husband Tom over her affair with Gatsby. After the event unfolded, Daisy “begged again to go” saying, “‘Please, Tom! I can’t stand this any more’” (134). This event signifies that “whatever intentions, whatever courage she had had, were definitely gone” (135). The aforementioned plot development serves as an illuminating incident in the novel, leading directly to the casement: everything that made Gatsby great suddenly collapses, which in turn is symbolic of the collapse of the American Dream. No matter how dishonestly Gatsby attained his wealth, his determination and relentless pursuit of his goals are what made Gatsby great. He sought all of his success so that Daisy would want to be with him, and when she chose Tom over Gatsby, everything that Gatsby had spent so long working for collapsed. This in itself symbolizes Fitzgerald's idea of the collapse of the new and corrupt American Dream. Ultimately the scene in the hotel where Daisy chooses Tom acts as an illuminating incident for the novel; this idea leads to a casement that showcases one of Fitzgerald’s themes of Gatsby losing what makes him great.

Izzie Hicks
Period 2
F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby provides insight to the delicate balance between seeking adventure and remaining faithful to one’s birthplace through both its symbolic geography and its characters, all of which add to Fitzgerald’s central theme about the American Dream. The American Dream has always come to mean “the ideal that every US citizen should have an equal opportunity to achieve success and prosperity through hard work, determination, and initiative”, however, in the 1920s, the ideas behind this were becoming morally flawed in that money was a major emphasis and attaining wealth and power was so imperative that one could attempt to do so dishonestly. This concept led to Fitzgerald’s negative critique of the American Dream in his novel. Firstly, the geography of the story is symbolic of different aspects of this renowned American Dream. The East section of the US, and East Egg, represents the impenetrable hierarchy of old wealth, an aristocracy that is formal and respectable, where the “fashionable” and “white palaces” (5) of people like Tom and Daisy are. To contrast, the West is generally renowned for providing opportunities for new adventure and prosperity, the West Egg housing the newly rich. Both Gatsby and Nick live in West Egg and it is regarded as “the less fashionable of the two” (5). In between this is the Midwest, which represents an honest and virtuous way of life, the less wealthy but uncorrupted lifestyle. This is also portrayed in the novel as the Valley of Ashes, a road between the East and West Egg where “ashes grow like wheat into ridges and hills and grotesque gardens” (23). The coming of the newly rich into West Egg, however dishonestly, is representative of the American Dream, but this idea is better understood through the characters of the book as well.
All of the main characters are Westerners: Daisy and Jordan from Louisville, Tom from Chicago, Gatsby from North Dakota, and Nick from the Midwest. Archetypically the West represents new adventure and pursuers of the American Dream. These characters go East to pursue their goals to achieve success and prosperity through hard work—following their own “American Dream”. Nick goes to New York in hopes to become a bond salesmen; Jordan goes to pursue her golf career; Gatsby goes to become wealthy and ultimately seduce his love Daisy a second time. Yet, the end of the book is where Fitzgerald’s negative critique of the American Dream comes into play. After Gatsby’s death, Tom, Daisy, and Nick all leave the East to go back to the West. This event evidences that the characters were unable to adapt to the East and the evolving vision and pursuit of the American Dream is corrupt and flawed—so they leave. With this, the reader can come to the conclusion of what Fitzgerald is attempting to comment on seeking adventure and staying faithful to one’s homeland. If seeking adventure parallels the pursuit of the American Dream, this idea will eventually be sabotaged because it is inherently flawed. In theory pursuing one’s goals and wealth should not be a bad thing, but Fitzgerald is critical of the age of the “Roarin’ 20s”: focused completely on money, material items, and power, the American Dream to Fitzgerald was becoming increasingly dishonest and morally skewed. What made Gatsby great was his relentless attempts at pursuing his ideal dream, but even these pursuits ended in tragedy. The events of The Great Gatsby portray the American Dream as corrupt and as dead. In turn they comment on both the stark differences between East and West and the balance between seeking adventure and staying faithful to one’s birthplace.

Izzie Hicks
Period 2
In a letter to F. Scott Fitzgerald’s editor Max Perkins, the esteemed author confesses the fatal flaw of his novel: “If... The Great Gatsby fails commercially it will be from [the fact that]... the book contains no important woman character, and women control the fiction market at present. I don’t think the unhappy end will matter particularly.” As evidenced with this quote, Fitzgerald himself is inherently criticizing how his main female character, Daisy Buchanan, is portrayed in the novel. For decades critics have dissected Daisy and her personality traits that make her unpleasant. Yet the fact is, none of the characters in the novel are particularly likable—that is Fitzgerald’s intention. The central fault of The Great Gatsby is not necessarily Daisy’s unlikability, but is instead the fact that she exists simply to act as a plot device, not as a developed character. Differing from Daisy, the novel’s other main characters function as more than merely plot devices. Gatsby himself is the protagonist who drives the plot forward, his love for Daisy inspiring him to achieve wealth through illegal bootlegging. Nick is the perfect narrator, one detached from the central action, and is imperative for the reader to understand key themes such as the undeniable difference between the east and west in the 1920s. Tom, an extremely hypocritical and despicable man, symbolizes old wealth and ultimately is Daisy’s choice over Gatsby; despite his dislikable tendencies he is still a developed character that the reader can understand.
Daisy differs from the rest of the main characters. She exists exclusively to drive the plot forward—specifically Gatsby’s character arc. Gatsby’s longing for Daisy precipitated his quest for wealth through illegal activities, and eventually his large parties to attract his love interest from East Egg: “Gatsby bought [his] house so that Daisy would be just across the bay” (78). His death is ultimately Daisy’s fault, as she allowed him to take the blame for the car accident that killed Myrtle. Daisy is necessary only for these two major events and thus serves only as a plot device. Daisy is portrayed as a “flat” character: she is solely obsessed with money, which is demonstrated by the fact that she got tired of waiting for Gatsby and chose to marry Tom instead, a wealthy man that “gave her a string of pearls valued at three hundred and fifty thousand dollars” (76). In addition to her misplaced morals, she always appears to be putting on a show for those around her. Nick showcases her personality by saying, “I’ve heard it said that Daisy’s murmur was only to make people lean toward her; an irrelevant criticism that made it no less charming” (9). She is artificial and acts as though everyone is in love with and adores her. Ultimately, what makes critics disgusted by Daisy is the fact that she does not take responsibility for her actions, allowing Gatsby to take the fall for the car accident. All of her unlikeable traits combine into one stark and undeniable aspect of her character: the reader can never really figure Daisy out. As a flat character, she functions merely as a plot device. As addressed above, even Fitzgerald himself does not see Daisy as an important character. Daisy’s negligible purpose in the novel as a character is The Great Gatsby's one flaw, one that hinders it from achieving perfection.