Rose’s Comments (group member since Jun 28, 2016)

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

“Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove.
O no, it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wand'ring bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken."

(Sonnet 116)”

This particular passage of Shakespeare, when removed entirely from backstory or context, is a timeless testament to the patience and tenacity that must be present in love in order for it to brave the test of whatever hardships with which it is faced. Shakespeare's writing, in pertinence to romance, even to this day resounds with an air of unshakable truth, which one could easily believe is the reason to it's longevity, and is a significant factor in establishing it's relevance at present and indisputably for many years to come. One line in particular, "That looks on tempests and is never shaken," is striking both in the imagery it evokes, the merciless destruction of a natural disaster, and it's depth. It attests that love in its truest most unequivocal form, is not fleeting, or punctuated by thoughtless swells of lust and disdain, but rather characterized by a steady and unrelenting strength, consistency and unconditional dedication.

Jacob wrote: "Jacob Schwartzberg

About the change in the ending of "Great Expectations" Dickens writes, "I have put in as pretty a little piece of writing as I could, and I have no doubt the story will be more ..."

While I agree that the nature of the revised ending can cater to a more naïve, optimistically wired reader, I think that the assumption that this is juvenile is not necessarily true. It is understandable that one could come to this conclusion, because often novel's written for a younger audience do give endings that seem similarly convenient, but to lump this in with the likes of those is not entirely accurate. While that genre seems to come to positive conclusions of a given story, often they are thoughtless, abrupt, or somewhat dissatisfying to the plot. Despite your opinions of what Dickens' second ending does or does not fulfil, it is untrue to say that it doesn't satisfy a number of important points. This writing is thoughtful, more consistent with the voice of his previous work throughout, and generally constructed with a level of care. It is not as if he is bandaging an ending that needed to be rectified in order to shelter a given audience, but rather reimagining the story with a different course of events, many of the details contained within which instill closure at points where there otherwise would have been none. This is not juvenile, but more so a minute alteration to do with the way in which he remedies that which he has constructed within the story. Opinions aside (mine being that the original, more abrasive was better) you cannot deny the validity, and respective professionalism of either.

In Charles Dickens' Great Expectations, an important element of the given narrative is subtle elements of foreshadowing, thematic continuity, and closure. He does this through many plot points, a few notable ones being the reinstitution and subsequent renewal of the character Magwitch, the revelation that Estella is his daughter, and an explanation for both her bitter, unappealing demeanor, and Ms. Havisham's backstory which ultimately lead to its formation. It is for this reason that each of the two endings is both positive and negative when compared to the continuity of various narrative threads.

One particularly strong facet of the original ending would be the way it lines up to the rest of the piece as far as emotional tone. The story, following the wax and wane's of Pip's fortune and reciprocal misfortune carries throughout the duration of the story a melancholy undertone. In a fairly ironic way, the things he wishes for are often the things he gains, then loses again. For instance, his relentless infatuation to Estella is an important component to the first half of the novel, the confusing and complicated manner of her actions being one of his greater turmoils, and to have her lose both her allure and her initial bitterness is somewhat satisfying to the reader. However, the fact that in this addition, he doesn't manage to secure her love for himself, the ending is substantially bittersweet, in accordance to the rest of the piece. And for what reason would this romance be beneficial to the narrative? It was never alluded to, and as far as continuity of Estella's character goes, it really just doesn't fit. This story is never truly about romance, but very closely follows the idea of loss, and other ways in which Pip's fortune evades him. One parallel to this is his sister's death (347). If she were to live, that would have laid to rest the tension between her and her brother, especially that which developed after she left her behind, an invalid, only to make mockery to the lifestyle she lead with Joe. This leaves the reader yearning for a sort of redemption in pertinence to their relationship, but true to form, the opportunity is taken from him, and he must reconcile the loss within himself. This loss is paralleled in many other points of the plot, and without the completion of this trend with the loss of Estella's eventual affections, the ending holds far different implications as far as theme.

This by no means makes the second ending an entirely invalid preference, as it rectifies, and otherwise fulfills a variety of alternative points, the matter separating them being a perceived hierarchy of what the emphasized moments of closure should be. For instance, the second ending gives Pip precisely what he deserves. There is no swell of fortune, no influx of desolation, just a simple isolation, pure and simple. The difference in the second ending is that it delivers a sense of satisfaction. This can be considered a good or bad thing. To many, this was seen as a sort of pandering, coddling the audience and leaving them content. This could be a benefit, but in all truth, is not entirely true to Dickens somewhat dismal form throughout. However, in a more face value manner, this ending is consistent to the rest of the piece. In the original, there was an almost bare recounting of the narrative, nearly devoid of the flowery language one has come to expect from dickens, and in this it is somewhat Jarring. The new version is more true to his previous writing in that it is almost overflowing with visceral detail. While it could be said that he compromised a considerable element of the story by removing the melancholy tone in the final installment, some may find this more favorable. However, despite this, the favorability of this revision is the precise thing that makes it weaker, and the satisfaction it provides is ultimately hollow.

Elise wrote: "Elise Todd
Period 2

Throughout Pip's life, he looks upon his new surrounding with much fear. One could make the agrument that he is much too fearful of his environment and those in it. However, hi..."

As far as the use of Pips fear within the plot goes, I personally interpreted this to be merely a character trait rather than an instance of distortion. I think that while it can come off as situationally excessive, that anxiety when implemented as a character trait is fairly reasonable. Still, I think that this is an interesting case, as I didn't necessarily consider Pip's characterization to be an important part of a Dickens' distortion, and it is an interesting thing to consider.

Rose Cobb. Period 2.
The use of stark literary realism, while effective when employed by a particularly skillful writer, is not a universally positive device when crafting a story. This is because distortion, more often than not, is a way to create emphasis within a narrative that when told from an entirely objective position in a story can fall rather flat. One reason for this is because in order to establish a realistic narrator, particularly from a first or close third point of view, it is imperative to explore the subjectivity of their perspective to establish them as multi-dimensional. Besides expanding the position of narrator, subjectivity and distortion can prove to be extremely useful in establishing other important elements of story such as a hierarchy of themes, characters, symbols, and plotlines. Often, a story that approaches every event and detail it contains with an analytical and unbiased comes off as fairly one not. To provide distortion, however minute, is often directly equivalent to the implementation of emphasis. Characters that can be seen as unimportant will be supplemented with allure, symbols that once may not have stood out to the discretion the reader are highlighted. Much of this can be attributed to a healthy usage of distortion, as it is hard to ignore the seemingly out of place. This is particularly useful in Dickens' writing, as his detail oriented, drawn out style can at times be overwhelming, and make it difficult to differentiate things that are delivered with subtlety. One thing that is delivered far more clearly due to his use of emphasis is the theme of wealth disparity. The way Pip views both wealth and the wealthy is considerably inflated and exaggerated, establishing its importance from the get go.

This is particularly notable through the lens of Characters Ms. Havisham and Estella. Ms. Havisham is initially depicted as very mysterious, or perhaps bizarre. She is clad all in white and surrounded by a flurry of dilapidated luxury and stopped clocks (88). For one, this can be interpreted to symbolize the obsessive fixation of wealth and it's preservation, the ways in which people will seek to bend time in order to maintain some semblance of wealth despite the constant and often unpredictable flux of its nature. This is also a particularly strong use of distortion. If it weren't for the odd nature of this setting, one might not find it to be particularly notable, and thusly miss an important leading to the theme of this novel. Another way he emphasizes this theme is through the distortion of characters, and the dynamics depicted between them. This is most present in the relationship between Estella and Pip, because while his fixation on her is recognizably nonsensical, it remains present and prevalent throughout the duration of the work(142). The illogical nature of this calls to light the fact that her character is not merely a person, but a representation of an intrinsic and suffocating desire to achieve and maintain status. Without distortion, this theme, and many others would be not only muddled, but perhaps indistinguishable altogether.

Rose Cobb, Period 2
One illuminating incident that was particularly evident while reading this novel was the scene in which James Gatsby's background is revealed to be James Gatz. The idea of his identity, it's conception, complications, and ultimate downfall illustrates the superficial nature of the human facade. This novel serves to promote this theme by introducing, and then revealing the actuality of, James Gatsby's character and his identity. His introduction in to the story is when this facade is established. He is mysterious, enigmatic even, staring over the water at the green light that gleams across its surface (21). This is the first indication of his true character, what with the symbolism of green in this story being indicative both growth and envy, two staples of Gatsby's true persona. Still, his earliest appearances are characterized entirely by this image, projected by both the scene involving the first of his parties Nick attends and many of his interactions throughout. The first of these interactions where we really come to see his humanity, rather than the front he puts up, is the scene in which he asks Nick for his help reintroducing himself to Daisy. His longing for her is indicative of his insecurity, the way he lusts after not only her, but what she represents, her wealth, her distinguishability. This is simply inferred, but one realizes the actuality of this inference later in the story, at a point which can be clearly identified as an illuminating moment in the story, the moment when we at last learn Gatsby, or Rather James Gatz' true identity. "I suppose he'd had the name ready for a long time, even then. His parents were shiftless and unsuccessful farm people-- his imagination had never really accepted them as his parents at all. Jay Gatsby of West Egg, Long Island, sprang from his platonic conception of himself... So he invented just the sort of Jay Gatsby that a seventeen year old boy would be likely to invent , and to this conception he was faithful to the end." This, however, poses an interesting query. Which of his two lives is more legitimate, the one he no longer fulfills, or the one he hollowly forces himself to embody? Could it be both? Or, perhaps, neither, caught in some sort of restless state, neither one thing or the other. Its interesting to ponder, however one would be compelled to say he achieved neither. This is particularly prevalent within his funeral scene, when only one significant member of each segment of his life arrives. This shows that despite how richly he built up his life around him, it truly was empty.

In many ways, the Novel The Great Gatsby is a piece exploring the theme of self definition, and how to maintain one's roots in tandem with the insatiable craving for adventure and purpose. Just as many of Fitzgerald's works, he navigates this concept though the notion of wealth and those who have attained it, in stark opposition to the backgrounds of many of his characters, who hail not from wealth, but rather it's counterpart. Within this particular story, the humble origin from which many of his characters hail is the Western United States, particularly the American Midwest. Nick is from Minnesota, Daisy from Louisville, James Gatsby from a n agricultural background in North Dakota. The Midwest, by this time, had been established as a hub of both agricultural and mass production factory endeavors, as opposed to the Economic and Political Hub of New England. This is simplified by Fitzgerald as the differentiation between East and West being described as quite simply a dichotomy of new money and old money. This is in line with the American Ideal of the West being established as a plane of rugged individualism and hard fought opportunity, where one could obtain success, but only with considerable ingenuity. This story deals most heavily with the concept of the East though, the unattainable and intrinsic lavish of old money. Right from the get go, the east is established as the more desirable of the two, depicted as such: "Across the courtesy bay the white palaces of Fashionable East Egg glittered along the water" (5). The homes and residents of east egg are often described as desirable, or fashionable, and idealized to no end. This is particularly prevalent in the relationship between the Characters Daisy and Gatsby. He is fascinated by her due to her wealth and allure, having met her when he was only a soldier, wearing his uniform around her to keep his wealth or lack thereof entirely ambiguous(53). To him, she represents everything he could desire, leisure, wealth, and the socialite lifestyle which he only found truly in the years before he died. It is for this reason that he strives so desperately for both her affection and lifestyle, as far from any sense of authenticity as that might have eventually led him. This speaks to the idea of adaptation between Western and Eastern Life, as James Gatsby himself forces to adapt, making money through illegitimate means, in crime, and making it out so that it looks as if he truly has been rich forever, as untrue as it might be. If there is a delicate balance to be had between staying true to ones roots, and aspiring for self reinvention, James Gatsby, or rather James Gatz, has thrown it to the wind. This is made evident through the way in which his funeral is left nearly unattended , as in his pursuit of a making a name for himself, he has established very few legitimate human connections, all for the sake of an image that eventually led to his demise.

Rose Cobb, Period 2

Though F. Scott Fitzgerald's intentions were to formulate the so called "perfect novel" in writing The Great Gatsby, this notion itself is inherently subject to his own individual perceptions and biases, meaning it never truly could be so. While, on many levels, this work can be considered a particularly strong literary achievement, it is by no means faultless, as the Author himself was of fairly questionable morals, if you look into it a bit. One major way in which this manifests, and what one could perceive to be a major flaw in this particular work of fiction, is the disparity between male and female characterization. This is significant due to the context of this era: the 1920's. Not unlike the 1960s, the 1920s were a time of unprecedented social upheaval, and the individualism of women was particularly prevalent among the plethora of social constructs that were being challenged at the time. This movement was a major part of creating the sexually liberated party scene that is commonly depicted in Fitzgerald's work, primarily in this piece through the lavish festivities depicted in the Gatsby home throughout the story. It is for this reason that one would find it to be somewhat peculiar the way in which Fitzgerald depicts his female characters as so painstakingly one dimensional.

The main example of this would be the depiction of his character Daisy Buchanan. She is described, through the lense of her cousin Nick, to be a woman of fabulous wealth and simultaneous beauty. When she is introduced, this is made clear: "Her face was sad and lovely with bright things in it, bright eyes and a bright passionate mouth, but there was an excitement in her voice that men who had cared for her found difficult to forget: a singing compulsion, a whispered 'Listen'" (9). While this is a well executed description, it contrasts with the way the narrator describes both himself and the other men within the story by a fair margin. The men are characterized by wit, intellect, back-story, and why it is apparent that these elements are present in his description of women, it is notable that they are a side note, at the very best. Women within his writing gain their autonomy of character primarily through physical appearance, surface level emotional reactions and little else. Their formulation is considerably superficial and executed with seemingly less thought. That does not mean that their role in the story is diminished, but yet again, they play an entirely separate role from the males. The character of daisy, in particular, is used to highlight the whims and desires of Gatsby himself, rather than directly contributing to the motion of a plot. She represents and thusly personifies everything with which Gatsby fascinates himself. She is wealthy, fabulously so, and the socialite lifestyle she embodies is consistently portrayed as the end-all-be-all in Fitzgerald's work. In addition to this, her emotional codependency, and a seemingly desperate need to be loved makes her the perfect plot device. She highlights the thoughtless pursuit of desire James Gatsby is known for, by being herself an accessory to his character. This is particularly ineffective due to the way she is idealized, and how so much of Gatsby is enthralled with her, which would be otherwise a successful plot point, if Daisy was not such a superficial installation to the story. This can be illustrated within the scene where she ends up crying at the quality of his shirts, just before he does so. "He was consumed with wonder at her presence. He had been full of the idea so long, dreamed it right through to the end, waited with his teeth set, so to speak, at an inconceivable pitch of intensity" (92). This passage shows just how captivated by her, and further proves the point that for a plot that relies so heavily on the presence of women, they are simply not given the depth of character which their roles warrant.