Section 2- Invisible Cities

One thing that struck me from the very beginning of the second part was the way the author rewrote a sentence so that it could keep the same meaning but be expressed in several different ways. I could try to find evidence that maybe some of the material mentioned in the second section can be rewritten so that the reader can have a different perspective on the same city. They would have to be very personal interpretations of what the author could also be trying to portray through each part but this would be a very hard thing to investigate specifically. I do think that he may be trying to encourage his readers to open their minds to other possibilities that these descriptions of cities could be hiding and the results would be intriguing, though hard to find. This would take a very deep analysis of each part of the section to see whether I can derive a parallel to a city or description.

Section 1- Invisible Cities

One possible idea that I got from section one of "Invisible Cities" exploring form versus content. I found that Italo Calvino's work is very precise and full of very interesting imagery and maybe I could compare his interesting writing style with the content and see if they match or whether he emphasizes one more than the other. Since his work is clearly fictional it would be interesting to explore how realistic he tries to make his cities or if he wants his readers to know that there is no such city. I could analyze the reasons for remebering different parts of the cities for example how in one part he writes only about signs and another only about desires etc. I think that that is one very creative way of making form reflect content.

Voyage Act II

One thing that struck me from the very beginning of Act II was that the author goes back in time and add a side to each event. We now get to see things that were only mentioned in passing previously, in depth. I found it interesting to learn of what Michael and his liberal friends had been up to during his absence in the house and I think that Stoppard changed so that there would be a different location for the new act. The Second act seemed like a revision of the first act but from a different angle so that we get to know new characters and situations or what really happens. The change in each character's personality becomes more evident in the second act compared to the first. Alexander becomes less and less liberal, always trying to silence his son and shunning his work. He constantly encourages Michael to switch to agriculture because it is a more accepted profession. Also in the first act the characters mentioned the Beyers but only in the second do we get to know them and their relationship to the family. At the very beginning of the first scene we see Mrs. Beyer with Liubov and Varvara but it automatically switches to men having their own conversation, I don't understand why the author included this snip of conversation between the women because it is such a small introduction.

In the first act it is made to seem like it was Michael who just arrived at his house with all of his crazy, liberal ideas but in the second act we are shown that from the very beginning before his father's disapproval emerged he was associating with those kind of people. "Ah! You noticed. Because France is the flower of civilisation, and also the home of revolution which will lop off the head of the flower." This quote, said by one of Michael's friends shows how much they want to make themselves a part of other cultures instead of the Russian one. I think that Michael associates with them because he too resents the conservative and controlling Russian government and this is what causes so much friction between him and his father. From our point of view he just seems like a very rebellious character that is just causing problems for his family and putting strange and unusual ideas into his sister's heads. In reality he was one of the only characters that was realizing the state of oppression he and his family were living in, they just accepted the facts as they were, today people would be planning a revolution in a heartbeat. The author effectively shows how oblivious the family is to the evils of the present situation but Michael and his friends see the need for change. This is a matter of time period and our opinion compared the the opinion over a century ago spurs two very different reactions but Michael is the first to try to stand up to this authoritarian, unjust society. He perseveres even though his own family even shuts him out at times, this shows how politics greatly influence relationships as well.

In the end I don't feel a sense of conclusion, the play finishes with Alexander pretending to still be able to see even though he lost his vision it seem rather inconclusive. I think that maybe Stoppard concludes with Alexander being blind because this could show how he may be blind but still think he can see, he will never let go of his ideas or perceptions on life with or without sight and he proves this with Alexander being convinced he can see the sunset. Alexander changes political positions but then becomes extremely stubborn and self absorbed and he continues to disapprove of his son. This is an example of how even with evidence some men never learn. I think that in the end the people's surroundings in the play evolve much more than they do and this may be Stoppard's way of trying to explain why Russia is still backwards in some of its ideas. It's old traditions don't die because of the people's dependence on them and they remain the same according to their past and don't let the present circumstances change or affect them. This play shows that this may make a person feel safer since they stick to the same conviction all their life but it can also be inconvenient since it causes conflict between the new and the old. The new liberalism and old conservatism is what caused big issues between the people and since they both believe they are right the issue escalates and is very difficult to solve. So Stoppard is trying to show that we have to have a balance, we don't have to become our opponent we just have to accept some of it.

Voyage Act I

The names in Voyage yet again threw me off reminding me of the trouble I had had reading Uncle Vanya and after finishing the first act I was still unclear as to some of the subjects of conversation. One thing that noticed a lot throughout the first act was the fact that no one really payed attention to the other person, there were always many random conversations going on at the same time that it was hard to figure out who was addressing who. All the characters seem to be speaking at the same time and the conversations were very broken and confusing but the play itself was very easy to read. Another confusing thing was the relationships. I was never quite sure who was in love with who because there seemed to be some love triangles and maybe even unknown crushes, the family is very disjointed in their conversations and in their actions. At the very beginning the father shows pride in his family but slowly he loses control and they begin to lost their way, Micheal with his philosophical babble and all his daughters try to search for real love. Their father believes that Michael has poisoned his daughters to think that there has to be true love in marriage and that his son in undermining his plans. Some of the traditions and ideas in the play are definitely striking like the fact that he believes that the husband should be at least twice the wife's age. The play not only exposes early life in Russia but also some interesting cultural information.

The beginning of the first act is very introductory but soon intensifies with the addition of conflict accurate to the time period. It seems to me that the family is losing it's dignity and position because of the conflict and this is why the father is so desperate to marry his daughters off to good, suitable men. "My daughters have been educated in 5 different languages" this quote sounds to me as though their father is trying to rebel or push away some of their Russian culture by teaching them to be more English and they too resent being Russian as well. Both this play and "Uncle Vanya" had characters that didn't enjoy the state that their nation was in with it being racked with corruption and conservatism though I found this play more political and Uncle Vanya more about the environment. I think that the author chose a noble family to show the change in the political environment and how it would affect them. I found it interesting that Tom Stoppard actually wrote the play on a kind of timeline so that maybe it would be easier for the audience to relate the play with the event going on at the time, time goes by very quickly in this play and it must have been very hard to show the lapses of time from one scene to the next. All the daughters get married off quickly but become less satisfied with their matches and thanks to Michael's advice try to wiggle out of their marriages.

I think that Michael could represent the liberal voice of the time because of the types of advice he gives and the people he associates with. "'March here, march there, present ares, where's your cap?', you've no idea, the whole army's obsessed with playing at soldiers..." To me this quote shows him as a liberal because he wants to do things his own way without other's control and then when he turns to all the different philosophers mentioned he tried to think and act just like them. Michael is also very fickle and changes his mind very easily because of one event or another. I think that Stoppard shows this trait in a person as undesirable since he doesn't get along well his powerful and very stubborn father. The confusingly and intertwined relationships in the play show the difference in between obligation and desire when married women fall for other men and situations of the sort but I think it may also be criticizing that way of life because eventually people try to make love prevail instead of arranged marriages but both Alexander and Varvara are too occupied to notice. The deeper Michael gets into philosophy the less his father likes him and the more in debt he becomes. Michael, instead of doing well with his newly acquired knowledge of human nature he begins to get into trouble and become a more difficult person. I think that the way Michael begins to fall apart is the author's way of showing how a man has to take what he knows and put it to good use and since Michael doesn't put it to good use he gets himself into all kinds of problems.

His sisters on the other hand are taken over by him and are always faithful while their parents' frustration grows especially because of his ever changing attitude towards life and people. Alexander in exchange becomes more conservative maybe to spite his son and his actions and out of disgust for the way he is behaving, either way when one becomes more liberal a chain reaction happens showing how the other becomes stricter. The father condemns some kinds of literature and maybe Stoppard was trying to show the state of the nation using this family as his canvas. The family has its share of tragedies to add a touch of reality to the play. I think that the author is doing a good job using the family as an analogy for something bigger making each member a component of Russia, I can only guess but I have enjoyed the play so far.

Final Reaction to Macbeth

Overall I enjoyed the play even though I sometimes had a hard time with the old vocabulary the plot was interesting and captivating. I had no experience or background knowledge of the play so I read it not expecting anything in particular and just reading along to watch the action unfold and I think that made the book more tempting to read because I was learning as I read without an opinion or and idea at all. The idea of such an insatiable hunger for power can and has occurred in real life and this need is a very big factor in corruption. This makes the play more realistic and easy to understand. I believe that in the end Macbeth got what he deserved in the play because he caused so much harm to others that it was only fair that he should lose everything too. I found it sad that he became so inflamed and so convinced that he deserved the power and that he was invincible and this made the plot less cliche since he never learns his lesson. The witches with their potions and revelations helped him truly believe that he was indestructible since only a man "not born of woman" could kill him. I think that the only things that really made him feel fear or desperation was when the apparitions began coming true. It was a great form of irony on Shakespeare's part because it was the best way to defeat the enemy. Proof of how cold blooded he had become was when his wife dies and he isn't very distressed. He became so self absorbed and cruel that I don't think any reader resented his defeat.

Shakespeare used many literary devices like paradoxes, similes, metaphors, irony and he employed them well into the action. For example a good use or paradoxes could always be found during a scene with the witches casting spells or including confusing messages. This makes his work more witty and interesting to read. I found that the fact that the bad guy gets defeated in the end was rather cliche, but it is the ending that everyone who reads or watches the play expects because it would be disappointing if he got away with his actions. The action in the story was very captivating not only was there interaction between characters but there was a lot of conflict and two parts or sides to the story. There was the Macbeth side in Scotland and Macduff's in England. Rivalry brings action and action makes a work interesting. Overall I liked the play though I had a hard time with some of the scenes and may have misinterpreted some of his lines I enjoyed reading and acting it out.

Uncle Vanya Act IV

In the final act though we are frustrated by Voinitsky's stupidity we pity him because he explains just why he lost his mind, the fact that he has worked his hands to the bone all his life and will lose everything without acknowledgement is a very hard thing to face. He did over react but people like him who don't have anything in their lives except for their work will easily lose control if their one most important thing in life is in peril. People become the exact same way if their child's or spouse's life were in danger or something of the sort. One thing that all of the people search for the most in this play is happiness, this happiness doesn't have to be overwhelming bliss, just satisfaction with their lives and their position and the moment, I found that many still are searching and I don't think that people like Serebryakov ever find that kind of peace. "To wake up on a clear, quiet morning and feel that you had begun your life anew, that all the past had been forgotten, had vanished like smoke." Most of us do wake up and see our families and look out the window and smile but to people like Voinisky this seems so impossible and so out of the ordinary that it is tragic to see how unhappy he has been his whole life. I think that his play is about the pursuit of happiness but that author makes it so that in the end the characters never are truly happy but I guess their satisfaction in there work is good enough.

The way the characters found happiness, well at least Voinitsky, Marina and Sonya, was through work and routine and even though to us that doesn't mean much this kept them distracted and cheerful. This ending reminded me of "Candide" because he too finds use and purpose when he begins to work instead of just being idle and even though this isn't much it's what kept these characters going and that I find very impressive. Even Voinitsky who was ready to give up on himself was able to distract himself with work and so they win two battles, one on boredom and the other and poverty by putting themselves to good use. "Let the go, I... I cannot. I feel miserable. I must get busy with something as soon as possible.... Work, work!" It's interesting how dependent Voinitsky was on his work but as long as it kept him sane it was a good thing. I think that Chekhov is trying to tell his audience that if you are idle like Elena and her husband you will be burdens and disliked but if you do your share in your area you will be respected so even though he isn't encouraging attempted murder he is trying to enlighten his audience to the ways of the world by telling them that without productivity you'll go nowhere in this life.

I found that the end of the play was like a new beginning for the characters left since they now had their lives back to live anew and to do things the way they wanted to without having to serve other people but like a more independent life. I wasn't able to tell how much time went by in the play but I think it was rather consistent so the Chekhov didn't skip days or hours but it was hard to tell. Though there is still some resentment till the very end of the play the return of normalcy lifted the characters spirits. I think that the play was named "Uncle Vanya" because of what a power character he is and all of the lessons we learn from him. In the play he is the one making the most mistakes but also developing and growing the most every day through his issues and I think that this makes him a very strong character, the strongest in fact, and so he is worthy of being the title of the play. Though it doesn't focus only on him he is the one who makes the most terrible errors and suffers the most so, through the author we are closest to him, I find the name very appropriate.

Uncle Vanya Act III

There are new discoveries in this chapter that stir up more excitement and questions in this act, the audience learn of Sonya's love for Astrov. Elena is told this by Sonya and she reveals her lack of self-confidence and weakness for Astrov who is not at all interested in her. Elena is placed in the difficult position of questioning him about the matter and also reporting back to Sonya the man's feelings. This shows a very strong friendship and how deeply one cares for the other since they are willing to do awkward, uncomfortable things for the other. The disappointment that Sonya feels is very real because the fact of one sided affection is a very common fact of life and happens very often. These aspects of the play are the ones that make it easily for a broad audience to relate to since any of the characters could be a regular person dealing with the same issues. "I'm not beautiful" in this quote Sonya is addressing an issue that many young women face and have faced every single day, their vanity. And, like many, she is unhappy with herself especially because she feels under appreciated for her looks and envies people like Elena, it is sad how this fact of her plainness distresses her.

Astrov's acknowledgement of nature's degrading state shows that Chekhov intended to send a very real and relevant message by adding facts like the abuse of nature by man. To me this shows that he is really trying to accurately recreate life in a certain place with very real people and issues. "Already only one third of the area is woodland. There are no longer any goats..." I can't believe that a hundred years ago an author was already addressing issues that we are seeing in huge proportions today, this means that man's over expansion has been effecting our world long before anyone really took a stand against the terrible effects. I think plays like Chekhov's even though he doesn't focus on the matter could have been a start. The way Chekhov weaves in the environmental problem shows that people from the beginning were very indifferent or too ignorant to understand or care, this clearly portrays problems that we still face today with relation to ignorance and indifference and he is showing how dangerous and damaging this position can be. Astrov, though passionate gets quickly brushed off when he begins discussing the environment and today we still face many of the same reactions.

One quote that I found very interesting was, "Dr. Mikhail Lvovich rarely came to visit us before, once a month perhaps, and then it was hard to persuade him, but now he drives over every day; he's deserted both his forests and his medicine. You must be a witch." Sonya is talking to Elena and I think this quote shows the clearest difference in between the two women, one gets all of the men and good fortune while the other is not particularly attractive and is unmarried. Like the fact the Sonya is madly in love with Astrov and he confesses a terrible infatuation for Elena puts her in a difficult position with her friend but must be also very frustrating because these things happen unconsciously but still she sometimes has to suffer the consequences. Also, I wonder why it was the Elena and Sonya had been fighting before, another very usual thing and very probable even in the best relationship. Serebryakov's selfish nature brings out the good and bad in people and only the best stand by him, there are many older people out there just like him who are huge ungrateful burdens and so we understand Sonya's and Elena's frustration because they don't have a choice, they are bound to him. At the end of this act Voinitsky tries to kill Serebryakov, I think that his actions show exactly how much of a burden the man has been and how much Voinitsky is suffering because he was driven to such desperation. When humans are panicking or greatly dissatisfied or have nothing to lose they may resort to very irresponsible and dangerous actions just like Voinitsky to fight their last fight before giving up on themselves. Voinitsky is the clearest example of blind suffering by trying to kill another man.