AP Lit Blog - Anastasia Kishiniovski (AP Exam Debrief)

AP Exam Debrief

After taking the exam, I felt a feeling of accomplishment rather than dread. That is when I realized just how prepared I was for taking this exam and how much the class actually helped me in the end. One of the most useful in-class activities (in terms of preparing for the AP exam) was when we would analyze sonnets or prose as a class and practice writing a thesis for each passage. I learned that the thesis is the backbone of the essay and that the "so what" should be introduced in the thesis paragraph so that my essay can have a clear focus to it. I also learned the importance of analysis in an essay and how deadly summary can be (which really did help me in the end!). I also found the weekly MC practice useful because it is fairly painless compared to taking full length MC exams during a class period. I also think that the works charts we did were really helpful in preparing for the open question because they refreshed me on the overall meaning of each novel and gave me ideas on what I should talk about for each topic. As far as lit works go, there weren't any that I particularly disliked. I thought Ibsen's A Dolls House was a very good choice for us to read because it is so easy to incorporate into different types of open questions. I found Winesburg, Ohio a bit more difficult to talk about so I would have to put that one at the bottom of my list of most liked... [it definitely has merit but I found it overwhelming with all of the different plot lines so I couldn't do an open question outline on it :( ] Overall, there isn't much that I would change about the course or the curriculum. I feel that a great majority of the stuff we did was necessary for our preparation and that there isn't much I would add to it. Thank you for being a great teacher this year and encouraging me to grow in my writing and analysis skills! They will definitely help me out in college!

AP Lit Blog - Anastasia Kishiniovski (Earnest Comments)

Response to The Importance of Being Earnest

I realized that I forgot to make this blog with all of the chaos going on last week involving AP exams. So I will do my response to the play now. I can say that I was rather surprised with the ending since the main character had a pleasant conclusion. This type of ending comes off as atypical for one of Oscar Wilde's works but I think the fact that Jack's lineage popped up out of nowhere and that he is suddenly able to marry Gwendolen is part of Wilde's social commentary on the lives of the elite upper class and how everything falls into place for them. This ties back to the theme of the serious being trivial and the trivial being serious. Both Jack and Algernon play around with their identities and names because these are things that the two consider to be unimportant, yet they stress so much importance on who is eating all of the muffins. I think Wilde is trying to reveal just how convoluted the minds of the super rich are. He also does this to point out how ridiculous it is to be shallow with a person's family name when so much importance is stressed on the minor details, like Jack's address in London.  I also find it interesting that Jack and Algernon turned out to be brothers and that Algernon is a brought to life version of the imaginary "Earnest Worthing" who is notable for his troublesome behavior. I also noticed that the gender roles are slightly tangled up in this play. It was brought up that a man's place is in the home, which would normally be a woman's place. This totally conflicts with the "separate spheres" that were established in the late 19th century. All of the women in the play also have a very dominant role over the men and their actions. Cecily and Gwendolen for example both stand up for themselves and tell off Jack and Algernon. This interaction puts the men in the victim role as they are afraid of upsetting the women and they retreat into the house. Jack's fear of Lady Bracknell also empowers women in this play. Lady Bracknell plays a confident and dominant role and causes Jack strife in his efforts to marry Gwendolen. With Lady Bracknell as a blocking force, Jack is again victimized and put into a corner by the force of a woman. The reversals of gender roles here and the reversal of the trivial vs. serious also contributed to the chiasmus of the play. One of my favorite lines in the play that generated this chiasmus was "I hope you have not been leading a double life, pretending to be wicked and being really good all the time. That would be hypocrisy"(Act I). Hypocrisy is usually when a person pretends to be good but is, in reality, very bad. This is an implication of chiasmus, as the whole play seems to be. I enjoyed this aspect of the play very much because the wit had meaning to it and was not funny for the sake of being funny.

AP Lit Blog - Anastasia Kishiniovski

First Impressions on The Importance of Being Earnest

After just reading up to Act I of the play, I have already grown a liking to how the scenes are set up and topics of conversation that the characters go on about.  Oscar Wilde uses a witty tone to dress up the dialogue between the characters and, in doing so, makes the play more fast-paced and upbeat as opposed to non-comedic plays of his time period. The comedy in this play appears to serve as a criticism for what Wilde sees as the ridiculous behavior and thoughts of the members of upper class British society. The comedy comes off as "light-hearted" in nature so Wilde may find the ways of the rich to be more amusing rather than appalling. Wilde plays up the theme of false appearances with the establishment of "alter egos" for the characters that help them escape the pressures of perfection. Algernon, for example, uses Bunbury as his excuse. Out of curiosity, I looked into the meaning of the name Algernon (because I found the name to be quite unusual and uncommon compared to the other names in the play) and discovered that the name is actually French and means "with mustaches". I found this interesting because mustaches are often used to disguise or to establish mystery. Another name I looked up, and one that caused quite a stir in the act so far, is the name Ernest. It turns out that the name Ernest is Germanic in origin and means "serious". I found this to be ironic because Ernest is Jack's carefree and troublesome alternate identity while his "Jack" persona is supposed to be the serious one. The focus on names in this novel is a recurring motif so far and names seem to characterize the people in the novel. Gwendolen's insistence that Jack looks like an Ernest and that part of her love for him is a consequence of his name may be a commentary on how much status matters in society. One's family name could be decider on your financial stability, future career, and future spouse in this era. The fact that Jack does not have a family origin thus far and that his family name of "Worthing" really isn't a family name at all provides the first major conflict in the play. This conflict has its' origins in the snootiness of Gwendolen's guardian: Lady Bracknell. Although Lady Bracknell initially refers to the status of Worthing's parentage as a trivial matter, she soon makes it clear that it is extremely important after all, despite her saving it to be the last topic of conversation. I found this interesting because although we established that this novel treats the trivial as serious and the serious as trivial, the serious may actually be just as important as it should be, but is simply understated in their conversations. Overall, I find this play refreshing in the way that the dialogue is oriented and how the plot is structured. Wilde creates an excellent balance of meaningful plot and witty comentary.

AP Lit Blog- Anastasia Kishiniovski

Background on The Importance of Being Earnest

The Importance of Being Earnest is often described as one of Wilde's best works and a great display of his artistic ability. This Victorian melodrama or "sentimental comedy" was written in the late 1800's and performed when Wilde was in some legal trouble. I wanted to find out the historical context of the plot that Oscar Wilde developed so I made a search for how society of that time period ties into the story. I found that political affiliations mattered greatly to people of the upper class in that time period. People often planned out who they could and could not speak with according to their views on politics. Two major parties that had been present in England at the time were the Tories and the Whigs. Not only did these two groups have differing views on government policy, but they also differed in their religious standing with the Tories being associated with High Church and the Whigs associated with Protestant dissent. Politics are apparently mentioned by several characters in the play, including Lady Bracknell. Politics would tie in to society in this case as social interaction would be dependent on political affiliation. This suggests that Wilde's characters are very closed-minded and favor those who share their opinions rather than challenge them. Through this, we can predict that Wilde's characters will be very shallow and secluding of others. Understanding the political setting of the play would give us, as the readers, more insight and context into why things are a certain way. Another event that had recently occurred in the time period was the French Revolution. That revolution was an attempt by a lower class to bring about change and overthrow the rich nobility who would live lavishly as the poor starved. Immediately following the French Revolution, many believed that the revolutionary sentiments would travel all throughout Europe and that revolution would even occur in England. Seeing as the main subjects of this play are the wealthy upper class, it would be expected that they feel uneasy about this possible threat and that they feel their positions in society are in jeopardy. This creates a disparity in the lower class and upper class as if they are two completely different categories of people, which could highlight the characters' attitudes towards those lower on the totem pole than them. The revolution is alluded to in the play as well, contributing to this idea. Wilde will apparently make use of the historical context in the play, which would explain the rationales for a character's behavior and would help the reader picture the mindset of the character. Knowing the turmoil in England at the time will help the readers by establishing a historical and ideological setting in which all of the events are taking place. Since times have changed since the 19th century, it would be useful for us to remind ourselves what the norm was for society in that day so that we can have an idea of why the characters act the way they act.

AP Lit Blog - Anastasia Kishiniovski

My Opinion of the Ending of Emma

I know that "The Ending" is one of the reading focuses that was chosen for the novel, but I have my own opinion about how the story ended. The last few chapters had a sort of "resolving" nature to them. All of the previous tension and drama seemed to fade away as the remaining female characters were married off. This ending, to me, was fairy-tale-like and had the "happily ever after" aspect to it. I half expected Emma and Mr. Knightly to ride off into the sunset together. Emma's relationships with both Harriet and Frank both seemed to magically mend themselves with little effort on Emma's part. Mr. Knightly's sudden, almost unconditional, positive regard for Emma was also quite strange. He attributes his new emotions towards her as a result of her maturation. Mr. Knightly had previously been so disapproving of Emma and regarded her as a spoiled child, and now they are getting married! It could be argued, however, that Mr. Knightly's relationship with Emma simply changed dynamics and that his chiding of her was a teasing way of flirting with her and that his criticisms of her actions were only out of his deep care for her. Even with that possibility, Emma's sudden maturity at the end of the novel also came out of nowhere. Emma restrained herself from commenting negatively on Harriet's engagement with Mr. Martin and instead looked past his social rank for Harriet's sake. This is a huge contrast to the self-serving Emma that we have seen from the beginning of the novel. Her reconciliation with Jane was the ultimate transition from catty teenager to classy adult. Emma put aside the gossiping and no longer viewed Jane as competition. In fact, they become friends and have nothing but kind things to say to each other after the encounter. Emma's wedding at the end was a trademark feature of fairy-tale princess endings. The event marked the official beginning of her adulthood and was the conclusion of her Bildungsroman tale. In fact, the only sour note of the affair was Mrs. Elton's attitude towards it. Her comments were actually characteristic of how Emma may have acted at one point. Mrs. Elton's shallow comments on the decor characterize that while she stresses the importance of appearance, Emma in contrast values the heart and has found a place for love in her life. Marriage had been previously established as a tool for young woman to become financially and socially stable, specifically by Emma. But through her actions, she demonstrates the value that the union of marriage has for the two people involved. In our first seminar, we talked about how Emma may be lonely and that is why she enjoys playing around with other people's lives so much. This theory could prove to be correct as Emma now has Mr. Knightly and she is past her match-making days and would now rather mend the friendships that she has broken than be shallow and materialistic as she once was.

AP Lit Blog - Anastasia Kishiniovski

Gender Roles in Emma

Jane Austen uses the theme of gender roles in the novel Emma to characterize the protagonist as vastly different form the usual depiction of a woman of that era. Women are usually subordinate to men in many works of literature, especially those that date back to Jane Austen's time. But the women in Emma, particularly Emma herself, seem to be much more dominant than the men are in the story. Emma can be viewed as an empowered woman who does well on her own and does not rely on others but rather proudly supports herself. She is well aware of her financial stability and declares that because of it, she does not need to rely on marriage. Many women seemed to be trapped into an "old maid" description if they put off marriage for too long. Although it can be quite common for men to be independent, it is expected of women to be dependent and needy. Emma, however, does not live up to these demands of society but seems to posses more headstrong qualities than the average dainty lady of her time. And the fact that she is not affected by what others think of her ideals makes her an even stronger figure of female empowerment. Women, in general, are given greater credit in this novel than usual. Ms. Weston, for example, maintained order at Emma's home and her departure put Emma's father in a frazzle. Instead of his assumption of the "head of household role" that is so fittingly given to the man of the house, Emma assumes Ms. Weston's responsibilities and is more of a caregiver to her father than he is to her in many ways. Emma's manipulation of those around her, although immoral, is also empowering in a way because she has control of her environment. Although Emma is a self-proclaimed matchmaker, she is often matching people out of her own selfish desires and not for the good of her friends. But her involvement in their lives gives her the power of influence that is rarely observed in young ladies. Most are expected to become proper and polished and to bend to the wishes of society. Emma, on the other hand, does not bend herself to meet the needs or expectations of society, but rather acts as a result of her own wishes. This sense of "freedom" that she has was very rare among women, who often felt trapped in the role of trophy wife/mother. Her resolve to be single has relieved her of the pressure of being mindful of her actions so that she would be perceived well by possible suitors. Jane Austen has turned the tables in this novel in terms of gender roles and has created female characters that rival her male characters in both intellectual capacity and self-reliance. Austen's character Emma has proven that women can be responsible for their own paths in life and that those women who are not willing to bend to the expectations of society will overcome these expectations and will live nearly in equity to men.

AP Lit - Anastasia Kishiniovski

Emma vs. Jane

After reading several chapters into the assigned reading, I have learned more and more about Jane's character. Jane Fairfax was originally introduced to us as someone Emma has great disdain for but the reasons for Emma's dislike for Jane were not made clear. It was suggested in class that Emma and Jane may be foils for each other. The two are revealed to be very similar to one another and even Emma admits that Jane is beautiful and possesses some of the same qualities as she does. But the one thing that discerns the two from another is money or status. Jane was not born as lucky as Emma and therefore does not have a grand fortune that she can depend on. Jane is also much less outgoing and outspoken than Emma is. The reason for this may be that Emma doesn't feel the need to impress anyone since she is not "in need" of a husband while Jane would benefit from a husband who was of higher rank and more financially secure than she was. But this still does not explain why there is such tension between the two. Although Emma is shallow when it comes to social standing and money, she still associates with Harriet and goes out of her way to keep her as company even when she chooses a love interest that Emma does not consider to be "gentleman enough" for her. Since Emma and Jane are so similar, it seems unusual that they do not become quick friends. Jane, after all, could easily be another "Harriet-type" because she was also orphaned and was taken under the wing by the Campbell's, who educated her like Emma attempted to "educate" Harriet. Mr. Knightly suggested that Emma may perhaps be jealous of Jane, which would also be strange since Emma thinks so highly of herself it is hard to imagine that she would be jealous of someone, especially of someone who is worth much less than her. If she were to be jealous of Jane it would be of her character in general which would mean Emma may wish that she were more reserved and delicate herself at times. Her strong personality overpowers Jane's so Emma does not find their interactions exciting. The contrast between these two characters could prove to be interesting in the chapters to come. Emma appears to be threatened by Jane so there may be some sort of competition between the two that could emerge. Although Jane's character has only been briefly introduced, I have questions of where her involvement could take the story line. Is Jane one of those characters, like Mr. Knightly, who reveal Emma to be who she truly is? What was the root of the tension between Emma and Jane? (since this is not the first time they have met) And how does Austen use Jane's situation to reveal her feelings toward society? Hopefully Austen will go into greater detail as we learn more and more about Jane Fairfax and my questions will be answered.

AP Lit - Anastasia Kishiniovski

Emma Woodhouse's Matchmaking

The plot of the novel so far has revolved around Emma's attempts to match Harriet Smith with Mr. Elton. Emma assumes the role of not only a matchmaker, but also a mentor for Harriet, who she assumes needs a guide to make choices for her. Emma continuously pushes Harriet towards liking Mr. Elton, although she clearly has feelings for Mr. Martin. But Emma does not see Mr. Martin as a suitable match for Harriet because he is a farmer and she is the daughter of a gentleman. Emma judges Mr. Martin so quickly and harshly just based on his job title and even suggests that she would never associate with that type of people and that if Harriet married him, they would no longer be friends. This, again, reveals the importance of social standing in this English society where marrying outside one's class was unusual and people wanted to marry someone with either equal social standing or greater. This puts a greater emphasis on the shallow aspects of life rather than the genuine emotions that relationships should be based on. Harriet and Mr. Martin have mutual feelings for each other but Emma quickly dismisses these because it would seem like Harriet was settling. So she convinces Harriet to drop her feelings for Mr. Martin, who is quite disheartened, and to focus on developing a relationship with Mr. Elton. Although Emma has the best of intentions with this arrangement, she gives Harriet false hope that her affections would be returned with Mr. Elton while, in reality, Mr. Elton prefers Emma. It becomes apparent quickly that Mr. Elton has feelings for Emma, but she seems to be oblivious to them because of her focus on being single and assisting others instead. When Mr. Elton reveals his emotions to her, she becomes angry and does not even consider a relationship with him. Her anger may be due to the fact that she did not see this coming and that things slipped out of her control. Emma comes across as a bit manipulative in this sense as she needs everything to fall into place the way she wants it. This need for order and control may be due to the fact that she had to grow up most of her life independently and has had to take up responsibilities in caring for her father. Mrs. Weston's leaving may have also caused this need for control in her life, along with a need for companionship. Although she does not want to marry because she is financially stable (as she view marriage as merely a tool for one's financial/social betterment ), I believe she is in need of someone who could balance her out emotionally. The character who could fill this role would be Mr. Knightly as he seems to truly care about her but is unwilling to feed her ego because he feels that it would be unhealthy for her. Having seen Clueless, I can see parallels between his character and Josh, so I can only assume....

AP Lit - Anastasia Kishimiovski

First Impressions of Emma

Jane Austen's Emma began with a description of the protagonist, Emma Woodhouse, and set up what had happened in her life so far. One of our focuses for annotating is anything that characterizes Emma (either directly or indirectly). The narrator appears to be especially fond of Emma in her descriptions of her as she paints her to be selfless and classy, despite how pampered she is. Emma is a sort of caretaker to her father, both in the physical and emotional sense. Her father was so upset about Miss Taylor's departure so "Emma smiled and chatted as cheerfully as she could, to keep him from such thoughts". Emma reassures her father and looks out for his best interests, taking the place of his wife. These actions give her character a sense of maturity and responsibility. Her father, in fact, speaks very highly of her and considers her to be perfect. "Emma never thinks of herself, if she can do good to others", he would say in her defense. In contrast, Mr. Knightly picks apart each flaw of Emma's and considers her "matchmaking" to be trivial. "Where is your merit? What are you proud of? You made a lucky guess; and that is all that can be said.", he retorted at her claim to have set Miss Taylor and Mr. Weston up together. So we have two conflicting attitudes towards Emma: her father's unrelenting love and Mr. Knightly's condescending remarks. Her father may be biased because he is, after all, her father. But I feel that Mr. Knightly's comments may be more playful and hurtful, he seems to be teasing her as if he had a crush on her. (possible relationship later on in the book?) But overall, Emma has been characterized as confident, witty, and mature. Another focus we have for our annotations is the satirizing of society. All I have noticed so far about the society that Emma lives in is that marriage is extremely important and is viewed as more of necessity for one's well being rather than a product of love. Miss Taylor's husband is repeatedly mentioned as being "a man of unexceptionable character, easy fortune, suitable age, and pleasant manners" and that "the marriage is to Miss Taylor's advantage; she knows how very acceptable it must be, at Miss Taylor's time of life, to be settled in a home of her own, and how important to her to be secure of a comfortable provision". They barely even hint at the attraction between the two as if it is not a priority. Mr. Weston's troubling past is also spoken of and his lack of a wife after his previous wife died was an oddity to many and people in the town began to speculate what was wrong with him and why he did not already have a new wife. Marriage comes off as a "convenience" in this society and I believe that this will be satirized repeatedly throughout the novel as Emma assumes the role of a matchmaker who lacks her own match. (which seems to be a frequent story line in books lately)

AP Lit - Anastasia Kishiniovski

My Opinion of the "Nunnery Scene"

I enjoyed spending the week speculating about whether Hamlet knew he was being watched or not and directing our scenes while taking that into consideration. I found this to be one of the most emotionally charged scenes of the play so far so I'm sure Hamlet was emotionally invested in his conversation with Ophelia even though he probably knew Claudius and Polonius were watching from the sidelines. Hamlet may have been testing Ophelia to see if she could just blatantly lie to his face and betray his trust. When her response to his question about the location of her father was unfavorable to Hamlet, he became angry at the fact that Ophelia could be manipulated in such a way and is just being used to observe him. (Assuming he knew he was being watched) This is when he may have started playing the role of "mad Hamlet" again but Claudius saw right threw it. But his sudden madness may not have been entirely fabricated. He was already frustrated with the fact that he couldn't trust the people around him and the one person he felt that he could confide in was also being used to monitor him. This prompts his tirade against women when he basically implies that women are the source of all sins and evils and that only a fool could not see this. He comments on Ophelia's beauty and asks how she can be considered honest if she is so beautiful and he concludes that a woman's beauty is merely a tool of manipulation and is a sign of her dishonesty. He also asks her to stay pure and to not marry. It is not apparent whether he says this because he wants her to wait for him or whether he is being cruel by telling her that a man's marriage to her would bring him no good. His sentiments towards women were caused by his mother's sudden marriage to Claudius, which Hamlet felt was a betrayal to his father. These sentiments were only escalated by this conversation with Ophelia when he realizes that the women in his life cannot be trusted. This may have very well made him slightly crazy. Claudius and Polonius know that there is something very wrong with Hamlet but Claudius doesn't believe it has anything to do with his "love" for Ophelia. Polonius still believes that Hamlet has an unrequited love for Ophelia despite what he has just seen, which makes one question his judgement, and he suggests that the queen could talk to Hamlet before Claudius hastily sends him off to England to cure his sadness. Despite the emotional exchange that occurred between Hamlet and Ophelia, Ophelia is still very much in love with Hamlet even though he claimed their love was never real. After Hamlet exits, Ophelia laments on Hamlet's gradual decline as a person and she genuinely hopes that he gets better for his own good. But Ophelia's role in this story so far is not favorable to her and Hamlet simply tosses her aside while he deals with his other problems. Their relationship has only been characterized by a few scenes so far but they have all been conflicted in some way.

AP Lit - Anastasia Kishiniovski

Hamlet's Revenge Plan

Throughout Act II, it seems as if Hamlet has been stewing in anger over Claudius but hasn't taken any action. He had hardly mentioned his vengeance until his rant at the end of Act II Scene II. When the Players were introduced, something must have been sparked deep inside Hamlet. The act of playing a part was ironic to him because the feelings that the actors were expressing were made up while Hamlet's feelings were all too real. Hamlet pondered how well the actors would do if they could feel what Hamlet felt, contributing to the whole "play" theme. Hamlet finally reveals the first step of his plan to avenge his father in his tirade. He hopes to reveal Claudius' guilt by having the actors put on a play that resembles Claudius murdering Hamlet's father. This could partly be because Hamlet still doesn't want to believe that Claudius killed King Hamlet so he needs confirmation by seeing the guilt in his eyes once he watches the play. Hamlet talks about the power of plays and how they can affect people by leading them to "proclaim their malefactions". Although Hamlet hopes that Claudius will confess to his sins right on the spot, it is highly unlikely that this will happen. Hamlet's rant on how cowardly he is and how he should take responsibility for this suggests that he will have to kill Claudius himself. There is also foreshadowing in the beginning of the scene when Hamlet speaks to Polonius and all Hamlet can think about is his life and how it is the only thing he would be willing to give up. This suggests that Hamlet would go to such great lengths to avenge his father and kill Claudius that he would wind up dead himself. Polonius thinks that his strange behavior is due to the fact that Hamlet is in love with his daughter but even his mother isn't quite convinced. Claudius assumes that this is the reason but perhaps he knows more than he lets on about.. Claudius and Gertrude ask Rosencratz and Guildenstern to observe Hamlet to find out what is bothering him but this could just be a way for Claudius to keep a closer eye on Hamlet and to find out exactly how much he knows about his father's death and what his plans are. Gertrude may also be in on the scheme and that is why she doesn't believe Ophelia is the cause of his strange behavior. Hamlet's overall mood in this act is withdrawn and conflicted. He knows that he must take action, but he is hesitant to do anything before he knows whether what he has heard is really true or not. He becomes a bit eccentric at points but this is probably due to all of the emotional stress he is under. It's only when he is alone that he reveals his true feelings to the audience and that is when we found out what is really going on in his head. My predictions for the next act would be that Hamlet would carry out his plans in trapping Claudius and that perhaps he would start to plan Claudius' death or attempt to expose him in front of Gertrude.

AP Lit - Anastasia Kishiniovski

Battle Royale

I have made significant progress on my book of choice: Battle Royale by Koushon Takami. After just starting the book, I immediately noticed similarities between Battle Royale and Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins. This made me wonder why the idea of a battle death was so appealing to so many but it also made me realize that the underlying themes of the two novels are practically the same. Both of the books are set in a society where the government uses these battles or games as a tool to keep people in line. In both novels, there had been an attempt of a revolt and there had been a suppression in response by the government. This resulted in the BR Act in Battle Royale, which was largely kept under wraps. The whole plot in Battle Royale revolves around using the power of love to overcome the suppressing and malicious government of this alternate Japan. Similar to Hunger Games, Battle Royale has two characters who emerge as protagonists and end up romantically involved throughout the novel. These two characters, Shuya and Noriko, become very successful in their journey to survive the battle and are a couple of the few students that team up and do not betray one another. The government's task in this "program" is to turn the children against each other and to cause them to commit gruesome acts to the people that they would have previously considered their friends. The 42 students that were chosen all knew one another and considered each other peers. The tyrannical government, however, went out of their way to ensure that the school children fight for themselves and do not survive if they form alliances. This is the government's effort to devastate the children's hopes and faith. The fear that they generated was used as a weapon to prevent against any future uprisings from high school students in this cold society of a near-future Japan. The school children quickly became paranoid and distrusting of one another and this led to their ultimate downfall. They believed that surviving on one's own was a better strategy because the inconvenience of being responsible for another's life was too great to risk their own life. This, however, was not the case with Shuya and Noriko. These two characters proved that alliances in times of distress were beneficiary and that sticking together was a key component to maintaining one's sanity. Mitsuko, for example, enjoys killing her fellow classmates and trusts no one around her. She uses psychological warfare and manipulation to trap her victims and is the polar opposite of Noriko. It is already apparent that Shuya and Noriko will triumph over Mitsuko despite the fact that she is more cruel and violent than they are. Mitsuko was made a victim by the government that organized this program because she gave into her fears and killed everyone around her before they could kill her. Given the opportunity to form alliances, she preferred to work alone and depended entirely on herself.  This strategy, however, did not work for those who implemented it in Hunger Games and is unlikely to work for those in Battle Royale because they are being manipulated by the system rather than taking control of it in their own hands, which seems to be a major them in the novel.

AP Lit Blog - Anastasia Kishiniovski

My Thoughts on Hamlet's Soliloquy

After spending the last couple of class days poking at this excerpt, I have gained new insight on Hamlet and what goes on in his head. His life went from being swell and dandy to absolutely horrifying in the matter of a couple of months. The pain that he experienced after losing his father was only magnified when Claudius married his mother. It is natural for him to be threatened by Claudius who he feels is trying to replace his father in every way. Not only did Hamlet believe that his father was a better king than Claudius could ever be, but he also stated that Claudius paled in comparison to King Hamlet like how a mortal would pale in comparison to a Greek god. In his rant, Young Hamlet goes on about the unfairness of life and paints God to be as uncaring as anyone else in his life, which he also finds meaningless. His angsty attitude towards his existence is justified by his recent struggles but may also just be a part of his personality. It is quite obvious that Hamlet was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and that his general safety and well-being is in no immediate danger. He jumps too quickly to the thought of suicide, suggesting that he is melodramatic in nature. He also described his mother's relationship with Claudius as incestuous when it is certainly not. He also comes off as quite the pessimist here as he thinks the whole world is out to get him. There's also a slight tinge of selfishness here as he doesn't even try to put himself in his mother's or Claudius' shoes. He immediately begins to blame without looking at the situation from their perspective. Hamlet does an excellent job of articulating his feelings while he is alone and should perhaps repeat them in front of his mother and Claudius. His "vow of silence" will do him little good and will only pile on the anxiety even further. I believe that this will be a play of "asides" as Hamlet will only share his true feelings when he is alone or when he thinks no one can hear them. This may be an indicator that Hamlet does not trust anyone except for himself. He suffers from great loneliness as a result of losing his father and feels isolated from his mother and definitely from Claudius. I also believe that there is a great deal of foreshadowing in this excerpt. Hamlet mentions death repeatedly and also mentions the weakness of women. This leads me to believe that there will be a betrayal in the future or that more death will come. He also mentions that no good will come from his mother and Claudius' relationship so I assume that it will be one of the two that will die or that one will betray another or that both will betray Hamlet. Hamlet's soliloquy, as a whole, characterizes him as both bitter and hurt. The combination of these two emotions gives him the depressed outlook that he has on his life and the lives of those around him.

AP Lit Blog - Anastasia Kishiniovski

As a prelude to reading Hamlet, I've decided to analyze a Shakespeare poem. I do not have much experience reading Shakespearean English so I think that this will be good practice for the weeks that are to come.  I've chosen the 116th sonnet out of random and have taken a liking to it. Like many of his texts, this poem is about love. He uses metaphors in this poem to characterize love as constant and omnipresent. "Let me not to the marriage of true minds/ Admit impediments. Love is not love/ When it alteration finds,/ Or bends with the remover to remove". Here, Shakespeare establishes that real love is not conditional in nature and acts on its own separately from those experiencing it. When two people get married, they take an oath that consists of "till death do us part" which is the idea that Shakespeare is expressing in these lines. Love is, in an essence, blind because it is not affected by superficial changes. "O no! it is an ever-fixed mark/ That looks on tempests and is never shaken;/ It is the star to every wandering bark,/ Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken". Here love is characterized as a stable, solid thing that can always be counted on. It is compared to a star, probably the North Star, that is used to position everything around it. Shakespeare implies that love is the only constant thing in our lives and that everything else falls around it and revolves around it. "Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks/ Within his bending sickle's compass come:/ Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,/ But bears it out even to the edge of doom." Love is again mentioned as a constant force as it is not at the mercy of time. Love and "Time" are set as opposing forces here as if they are in competition with each other. Time controls one's physical beauty but does not have a stronghold on love because Shakespeare has previously established that love is not affected by such shallow things. The only force that love is affected by is death, as was previously implied. So in the triangle of Love, Time, and Death, Death has the greatest impact on Love but Love prevails till the very end. "If this be error and upon me proved,/ I never writ, nor no man ever loved." The speaker is so confident in his claims about love that he is willing to risk the validity of all of his previous texts. He feels that he has captured love at its essence so if he is proved to be wrong, then he cannot imagine that a man has ever truly loved. Shakespeare used the popular theme of love in this poem to prove the nature of it and the power it holds over the world. He likens love to so many powerful and dominant things to explain its presence. Shakespeare's descriptions of love are to prove that this is a force not to be reckoned with because it is an independent power that the world is shaped around.

AP Lit Blog - Anastasia Kishiniovski

In keeping with the poetry theme, I've decided to analyze a poem this week for my blog entry. Specifically a short poem. I want to challenge my self to squeeze out 500 words of analysis for a poem with only a few stanzas. I chose "Success is counted sweetest" by Emily Dickinson. In this poem, Dickinson makes comparisons to describe the sensation of success and who it affects the most. In the first stanza, Dickinson says, "Success is counted sweetest/ by those who ne'er succeed./ To comprehend a nectar/ Requires sorest need." She uses this metaphor to demonstrate that success can only be appreciated by those who don't succeed, which is a bit of a paradox because once a person succeeds, they cannot appreciate success anymore. Dickinson uses diction such as "nectar" to give success delicious connotations, making it so sweet that one might feel sinful enjoying it. In the next stanza, Dickinson continues with, "Not one of all the purple host/ Who took the flag to-day/ Can tell the definition,/ So clear, of victory." She describes someone "taking the flag" and a victory, so this must be a battle example of the sensation of success. Dickinson already begins this stanza on a negative note with the "Not one....". The stanza is sort of like a story told backwards, with victory being secondary to the understanding of victory. Here again she claims that success cannot be appreciated by those who experience it. She even further claims that those who experience it could not even correctly define it if asked to. Dickinson concludes the poem with, "As he, defeated, dying,/ On whose forbidden ear/ The distant strains of triumph/ Break, agonized and clear". Here Dickinson attributes a sting to success as she tells the defeated soldier's side of the battle. Dickinson uses diction that evokes sympathy for the dying soldier and that projects a solemn feeling onto the poem to show who the true victim is here. Those who truly suffer are the ones who comprehend success as they here others enjoy it while they languish in silence. Dickinson describes his pain as agonizing as he listens to the cheers of his opponents while coming to the clear realization that they were successful and he was not. This thought implies that success can only be understood by those who suffer from seeing the success of others because they have the deepest longing for what they don't have. Dickinson's purpose in writing this was to juxtapose the cruel understanding that some have with the blissful ignorance of others. Her use of engaging metaphors, vibrant imagery, and diction with painful connotations worked to reveal her attitude towards the ideology of "success" and the sensation of being successful and victorious as all relative to the beholder, who may often times be an outsider looking in on another's success with painful spite. Her poem demonstrates that experiencing something may distort your view of the topic and that a contrasting viewpoint may be the key needed to truly "understand" an idea or emotion.

AP Lit Blog - Anastasia Kishiniovski

Grendel vs. Religion

I've noticed that throughout the novel, Grendel seems to be in conflict with religion and in the beliefs that the humans have about a higher being. He is exposed to several different beliefs and each affects his way of thinking and the way he acts. He seems to get increasingly frustrated with the humans and their beliefs, which he repeatedly refers to as stupid and vulgar. But, at the same time, he seems to acknowledge a higher being in his rants about life and his place in the world. "Why can't these creatures discover a little dignity?" I ask the sky. The sky says nothing, predictably.... The sky ignores me, forever unimpressed. Him too I hate...." (6) Although Grendel claims that belief in God is foolish, he still yearns for a response from the sky, who is personified and given importance with the use of "Him". Then, as the dragon presents a Nihilistic view to Grendel, he finds it a bit difficult to grasp. The thought of no purpose brings him a bit of sorrow and makes him increasingly cynical. "If you withdraw, you'll be instantly replaced. Brute existence, you know, are a dime a dozen, It's all the same in the end.... No difference, finally" (73) These words of the dragon are what break Grendel into his life of evil. The dragon presents a concept to Grendel which he initially denies but soon grows to accept as being the truth of his existence, so he must follow it. His insignificance in the world can only be countered with a role of influence, which he plays with the humans in inflicting pain and fear in them. But he is then introduced to the humans' concept of God, which Ork discusses with him. Grendel introduces himself as "The Great Destroyer" to the head priest Ork and initially plans to kill him. But Ork's display of emotion seems to have deterred him and perhaps enlightened him to see life from a different perspective and to know why the humans worship their own God. "The King of the God's is the actual entity in virtue of which the entire multiplicity of eternal objects obtains its graded relevance to each stage of concrescence. Apart from Him, there can be no relevant novelty." (132) Ork's words move him to tears, which is significant in the fact that Ork is known as a man of logic and not one of great faith. Perhaps his sudden moment of faith over reason could be related to Grendel's continuous search for meaning and understanding, rather than settling with the belief of an "insignificant existence". Overall, Grendel takes a spiritual journey as he explores the world of religion while also learning about nihilism from the dragon. This search for religion is also his search for a place in the world because he is in conflict with his existence and is unsure of whether he must live a life of good or evil. His conflict with religion is shown through his constant arguments with himself and his characterization as a "lost creature".

AP Lit Blog - Anastasia Kishiniovski

Comparing Beowulf's Grendel to John Gardner's Grendel

Despite the fact that I've only read up to chapter three of John Gardner's Grendel, I sympathize much more with this Grendel than the "monstrous" Grendel portrayed in Beowulf. In Beowulf, Grendel is built up as this horrible thing that has no emotions and just kills for the fun of it. But this new Grendel has feelings and comes off as misunderstood to me. He feels as if the whole world is out to get him and he acts like a human child in many ways(even when he is fully grown), which gives him relatable qualities. This Grendel is also portrayed as lonely and fearful; he isn't given enough attention from his mother and is afraid of the humans and their strange world. His loud shrieks and yells seem like cries of pain and sorrow; he wishes to not only have understanding, but to also be understood. Beowulf's Grendel also appears to be a tragic character because he attacks Hrothgar's people out of jealousy. Humans are portrayed as the "good guys" in this epic poem while John Gardner portrays humans as evil and frightening. They cannot be reasoned with and they planned to attack Grendel while he was stuck in a tree. Grendel also views humans as fabricators of lies in the context of their history. The epic poem Beowulf, however, paints Grendel to be the evil one. Grendel does not follow the rules that humans view as socially acceptable, and he is considered a "freak of nature" because of his unusual appearance. He kills out of instinct and cannot be bribed or persuaded, which frightened the humans. They viewed Grendel as a thing that needed to be slayed, not as an individual with emotions. John Gardner's Grendel's anger is a response to the evils of the humans and the savagery and violence of all of the animals around him, which make him look civilized in comparison. His thoughts also appear to be much more existential than anyone could have ever imagined. He repeatedly ponders his existence and his place in the world and expresses outrage over his life by letting out loud roars, which are a coping mechanism for him and his loneliness. The thoughts and actions of this new Grendel sort of humanize him and give him a profound character. While Beowulf's Grendel is viewed as a bumbling oaf who has no significant thoughts other than "kill", "eat", and "sleep", this Grendel has a multi-dimensional personality and thinks of things that even many humans do not consider. His attitude towards life, although pessimistic and grave, is a reflection of the deep thought that he has put into his existence and the existence of something higher than him that may be mocking him. Even the mere question of religion and the possibility of a higher being gives Grendel the characteristics of a scholar who simply wants to learn about the world around him and to become someone in this world. So while Beowulf's Grendel is frightening and savage monster, John Gardner's Grendel is a lost soul who is more than what he appears to be on the outside. He is misunderstood monster.

AP Lit Blog - Anastasia Kishiniovski

Individual vs. Society in A Doll's House

I'd like to apply my main focus from ATKM to Ibsen's play to see the relationship between the individual and society in the characters' lives. Torvald, for example, only views his life in terms of what society would find acceptable for him. He lacks a distinct sense of individuality and is completely controlled by society's expectations of him as the husband and father of his house. This characteristic of his is shown when Nora originally asks Torvald not to fire Krogstad and Torvald refuses because he doesn't want the bank employees to think that he can be so easily influenced by his wife on such major decisions. All he is concerned about is preserving his image as the man of his household and ensuring that he maintains a good reputation in the eyes of society. Even after he and Nora get into an extreme argument and he decides that she is not fit to raise their children and that he can no longer trust her, he still insists on keeping her around the house and having everything go back to "normal" for the sake of keeping up appearances. He is more concerned about what others will think of him and his marriage than about his marriage in general. Krogstad's decisions have also been impacted by society's influence. His moral "sickness" is only deemed that way because of society's standards for what is "moral" and what is "immoral". Krogstad had lost his credibility when he committed a crime of forgery and appears to have spiraled further down in his moral illness by resorting to blackmail in an effort to keep his job. But if society had not such great of an impact on what we deemed as "moral" and "right", then Krogstad would have never had such power over Nora in the first place. But society has such an effect on him because he is a victim to its control and rules. Nora, on the other hand, becomes more and more prone to express herself as an individual than to succumb to the role that society has given her. Although she is originally a slave to society as she plays the role of the perfect wife and mother, she begins to question the authority that society has in her life. Nora realizes that this lifestyle does not reveal her true identity and who she really wants to be, it just makes her into what society wants her to be. She breaks the status quo by attempting to become her own person when she leaves Torvald to live her own life. Nora's actions are a cry out against society and the traditional rules that society has set for people. Nora breaks free from these rules by establishing her own sense of the "individual" and not being swayed so easily by what society tells her she should and shouldn't do. Each of the characters in the play are either fighting against society and representing themselves as an individual or are giving in to societal guidelines and associating themselves with the crowd that is known as society.

AP Lit Blog - Anastasia Kishiniovski

Analysis of "The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber"

This Hemingway short story is, again, set in the African wild lands. We follow Francis Macomber and his wife Margot on a safari tour. Their relationship is less than ideal so they take a safari tour to spice up their marriage. Macomber had come upon an injured lion earlier in the day but had chosen to run away instead of shooting it, leaving their tour guide Wilson to complete the deed. Throughout the rest of the story, Macomber tries to regain his masculinity by successfully shooting more lions and showing his wife that he is not a coward. One of the central themes of the story is the struggle against fear and courage. Macomber feels the need to prove his masculinity and power to both Wilson and Margot and is embarrassed by how inhibiting his fear is on the safari. His failure to stand up to his fear on two occasions in front of his wife leads her to have an affair with their safari tour guide, Wilson, only further motivating Macomber to prove himself. There is a stark contrast between Macomber and Wilson. Wilson can be considered a foil for Macomber as he is rugged, courageous, and fearless while Macomber is reserved, cautious, and self-conscious. Through Wilson's analysis of Macomber, we learn more about who Macomber really is. Macomber's struggle for masculinity is also an effort to regain power in his marriage. He believes that the only reason his wife stays with him is for his money and that she doesn't truly respect him. But the "romantic safari escape" that he expected would turn around his marriage only further undermined him in the eyes of his wife. In the wild, his wealth and prestige did not matter, so Wilson came off as the more favorable option to Margot. As the story nears an end, Francis Macomber seems to have nearly overcome his fear of the African wildlife when he and Wilson pursue a group of buffalo. When they shoot the three buffalo down, we see Macomber finally gain his  confidence and masculinity as he experiences the rush of the kill. This is a new side of Macomber that Margot has never seen. So when one of the buffalo turned out to be only injured and starting charging at Macomber, Margot shoots her gun, killing Macomber "accidentally". We don't know for sure if she really meant to kill her husband but there is extreme irony here as Macomber was constantly attempting to prove his masculinity to his wife, who in the end may have realized that his new found confidence would cause him to come to his mind and leave her. A notable symbol that appeared in the beginning of the story but foreshadowed the ending was the roar of the injured lion that Macomber has fled from. The lion, like Macomber marriage, is hurt. But the lion continues to assert its masculinity and power, even though he is too weak to continue. The lion was finally shot and killed by Wilson, who can arguably be the cause of the end of Macomber's marriage (or his life) as he grew so obsessed with asserting his masculinity in front of his wife. In the end, this obsession destroyed him and led to his death: the consequence of pursuing something so wild and dangerous as buffalo in the African safari.

AP Lit Blog - Anastasia Kishiniovski

Short Story Essay

         When I originally submitted my essay, I thought that I had done pretty well. But after seeing all of the comments that were left on the turnitin.com form, I've realized that I have much to improve in. In the general comments for my essay, I read that I needed to develop my argument further and that I needed a stronger connection from my points to my thesis. I can definitely see where this is true. I lacked that connection in many parts of my body paragraphs where I merely analyzed the characters and symbols in an attempt to relate them back to either music or innocence, but rarely both. I also had a weak "So What?" in my essay, which is an aspect I constantly struggle with incorporating into my essays and timed writings... Another comment that I noticed quite a few times on this essay was "go deeper". The "go deeper" aspect relates back to my "so what?". My "so what" suffered as a result of the fact that I lacked depth in some areas of the essay. I seemed to only scrape the surface in a few parts of my claims. I mentioned a topic briefly, without giving it much analysis, and almost immediately moved on to the next claim. All of this detracted from my "so what" as a whole and the lack of depth and analysis made many parts of my essay appear less than profound. As far as structural and organizational mistakes go, I could have done a better job at blending my quotes to make the essay have a better flow to it. I also had an amount of run-on sentences, according to the comments. This may have been because I often fear having too many short sentences in my essays. I also fell into passive voice a few times throughout the essay. I have a difficult time breaking this habit and I often don't notice when I use passive voice, even if I re-read it. I also talked about some later parts of the story before mentioning earlier parts. Sometimes, when I go in strict chronological order, I fall into summary. So I tried to avoid this by mentioning the importance of scenes as a whole, but I ended up making the chronology mistake as a result. Overall, I am shocked with the amount of simple mistakes that I made in this essay. These were all mistakes that could have easily been fixed if I had only focused more on my analysis and deeper meaning. In my next essay, I will strive to include a more prominent "so what" and to relate all of my points back to the thesis frequently. The majority of my mistakes lied in the fact that I did not go further into my claims, resulting in a sub par essay. I hope to improve these areas of my writing so that next time I get the results of an essay back, I am not surprised when I see all of the things that I did wrong.