In the first chapter, Gilda transformed from a human being to a vampire. She is being introduced to a new lifestyle that has keened in on her ability to survive as a vampire. Gilda does not portray traditional vampire qualities, in that she does not kill her victims. Instead she gets in her victims' minds and tries to pursuade them to live a lifestyle that she seems to find more suitable in her opinion.
We perceive vampires as murderers and evil creatures - but when Gilda was faced with this challenge, she did not condone it. She would not kill the victim that Eleanor commanded her to to kill. Gilda seems to still be learning the ways of her newfangled life as a vampire. Gilda has learned enough to know righteous compassion for human life.
As the story progresses, it will be interesting to see if Gilda retains her empathy and composure, with the pressure she will be exposed to from her peers.
Scott Swan
Post 2
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Week Post Number Two: The Gilda Stories Chapters One & Two
Although I really don't agree with Gilda reading into her victim's thoughts and feeding off of people, the class discussion has persuaded me into viewing Gilda as a flawed existence rather than a monster or evil.
Gilda needs blood in order for her to keep living her immortal life. In exchange, she reads into her victims minds, playing into their thoughts to compensate for her taking some of their blood. I guess this isn't much different from us; we kill animals, even torture them and act vicioulsy towards them because some people view them as nothing more than food. Just because they are animals, some people view animals as a level below humans. I am not a vegetarian but I do believe that animals should be treated kindly. Me eating meat really isn't much different from Gilda taking blood from people. Actually, Gilda is probably better because she gives her victims something in return and doesn't kill them.
If there is any vampire to consider a monster, i'd be Eleanor. She doesn't go through the exchange and feeds off of people's emotions towards her. She enjoys manipulatino and treats people like toys. She has no respect for their lives, emotions, or how things play out in the end. This reminds me of a passage from page 31: "the source of power will tell in how long lived that power is." Eleanor's power is short lived, therefore causing her to jump from victim to victim. Gilda, on the other hand, experiecnes a longer lived power because she exchanges her victims blood for a fantasy or happier thoughts.
Pam Kawalerski
Post #2
Gilda needs blood in order for her to keep living her immortal life. In exchange, she reads into her victims minds, playing into their thoughts to compensate for her taking some of their blood. I guess this isn't much different from us; we kill animals, even torture them and act vicioulsy towards them because some people view them as nothing more than food. Just because they are animals, some people view animals as a level below humans. I am not a vegetarian but I do believe that animals should be treated kindly. Me eating meat really isn't much different from Gilda taking blood from people. Actually, Gilda is probably better because she gives her victims something in return and doesn't kill them.
If there is any vampire to consider a monster, i'd be Eleanor. She doesn't go through the exchange and feeds off of people's emotions towards her. She enjoys manipulatino and treats people like toys. She has no respect for their lives, emotions, or how things play out in the end. This reminds me of a passage from page 31: "the source of power will tell in how long lived that power is." Eleanor's power is short lived, therefore causing her to jump from victim to victim. Gilda, on the other hand, experiecnes a longer lived power because she exchanges her victims blood for a fantasy or happier thoughts.
Pam Kawalerski
Post #2
Friday, February 4, 2011
Week #2 Post
For this weeks post I think I will choose to focus on the discussion that took place in class today regarding whether one would/should classify Gilda as "evil", good, or a "monster".
Personally, I feel that the classification of a "monster" for Gilda herself is completely inappropriate. I see this because as we also discussed, the vampires in the Gilda Stories are most certainly different from the stereotypical blood-drinking, people-killing vampires that we all know. In saying so, one could classify the "typical" vampire as a monster as they take lives each night. In comparison, Gilda simply takes only the amount of blood needed and in return supplies a generous vision for her "victims". This also can relate to the comparison to "humans doing the same thing". Vampires NEED blood to survive, and it seems as if Gilda would not agree to taking blood from humans if there was indeed another way. I feel that she has some sympathy in the matter or else she would find satisfaction in killing, like another character we know...Overall, taking blood IS wrong, but there seems to be no other way. Also, she provides a means of happiness to her "victims" which seems as she is trying to give back for taking the blood, which is good.
The first two chapters of this book have opened a new knowledge to vampires, different from that we are used to knowing. Typically, we usually hear about the Witch Trials, etc. during the 19ths Century. This, I would say, goes hand in hand. Gilda is an African American vampire, clearly one significantly "un-excepted" in norm society during this time period, just as witchcraft was frowned upon. All in all, the first two chapters can be looked upon as the start to an opening of a new outlook on outcast-hood and I look forward as a new chapter approaches.
Courtney Bisher
Personally, I feel that the classification of a "monster" for Gilda herself is completely inappropriate. I see this because as we also discussed, the vampires in the Gilda Stories are most certainly different from the stereotypical blood-drinking, people-killing vampires that we all know. In saying so, one could classify the "typical" vampire as a monster as they take lives each night. In comparison, Gilda simply takes only the amount of blood needed and in return supplies a generous vision for her "victims". This also can relate to the comparison to "humans doing the same thing". Vampires NEED blood to survive, and it seems as if Gilda would not agree to taking blood from humans if there was indeed another way. I feel that she has some sympathy in the matter or else she would find satisfaction in killing, like another character we know...Overall, taking blood IS wrong, but there seems to be no other way. Also, she provides a means of happiness to her "victims" which seems as she is trying to give back for taking the blood, which is good.
The first two chapters of this book have opened a new knowledge to vampires, different from that we are used to knowing. Typically, we usually hear about the Witch Trials, etc. during the 19ths Century. This, I would say, goes hand in hand. Gilda is an African American vampire, clearly one significantly "un-excepted" in norm society during this time period, just as witchcraft was frowned upon. All in all, the first two chapters can be looked upon as the start to an opening of a new outlook on outcast-hood and I look forward as a new chapter approaches.
Courtney Bisher
Sunday, January 30, 2011
AAC
On a completely different note:
Upon approval by our instructor, Jeff, I am pleased to advise everyone about the new club on campus this semester!
1.)This Thursday at 4pm in OM 201, will be the first general body meeting of the Animal Allies Club of Canisius College. As Vice President, I invite you all to learn about the club and enjoy some free food!
2.)We will also be having a bake sale on the 11th and also on Valentine's Day(14th), so come grab your sweetheart some good grub!
3.) Thirdly, we will be having a film screening of "Fantastic Mr. Fox" soon!
I conclude that this is completely random, especially for an English blog post. However, being a new club, we run by the word of mouth at this moment. So, in saying so, if you have ANY questions, be sure to ask. I don't bite. :D
CHECK US OUT ON FACEBOOK!
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/group.php?gid=154396777933518
OR, feel free to email me at bisherc@canisius.edu
Upon approval by our instructor, Jeff, I am pleased to advise everyone about the new club on campus this semester!
1.)This Thursday at 4pm in OM 201, will be the first general body meeting of the Animal Allies Club of Canisius College. As Vice President, I invite you all to learn about the club and enjoy some free food!
2.)We will also be having a bake sale on the 11th and also on Valentine's Day(14th), so come grab your sweetheart some good grub!
3.) Thirdly, we will be having a film screening of "Fantastic Mr. Fox" soon!
I conclude that this is completely random, especially for an English blog post. However, being a new club, we run by the word of mouth at this moment. So, in saying so, if you have ANY questions, be sure to ask. I don't bite. :D
CHECK US OUT ON FACEBOOK!
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/group.php?gid=154396777933518
OR, feel free to email me at bisherc@canisius.edu
Week #1 Post
In response to number 1.)
According to Alice Walker, "one cannot truly have freedom unless one becomes an outcast". This "theory" can be compared in both her poem, "Be Nobody's Darling", as well as in other works of writing that we have read in class thus far. The interpretation and definition of an "outcast" is both familiar among everyone, as well as a bit different, depending on the person. One, like Alice Walker, would define an outcast as an individual that is to be proud to be different and stand apart from the rest. However, an outcast can be also be looked upon as someone who does not fit in, someone who you would not want to be.
In comparison to other readings, "Fleur", and "Mrs. Sen's", "Be Nobody's Darling" is the simplest. Both Erdich, and Lahiri choose to focus on two characters in one scenario, as two different retrospects. They do this, whereas Walker seems to propose to a wider audience, where everyone that feels left out can find unity and hope in her words. When it comes to having true freedom with being an outcast, I can configure that Erdich would agree while Lahiri would not agree.
Erdich, the author of "Fluer" writes of two characters, Fleur and Pauline, Pauline being the narrator. One can gather that from Fleur's eyes, "outcast-hood" is individualism, as well as freedom. She chooses to live her live anew when moving to the new town. Although she is described by Pauline as one who could brighten up a room with her good looks, Fleur sees beyond that in regards to simply living easy. Based upon her past of being mysterious and practically being shunned away from her old town, Fleur starts new, showing to Pauline that being an outcast simply makes you an individual and you must make yourself happy. Pauline, however, sees things in a different light. Towards the beginning, Pauline is lost in herself and is invisible to everyone else. Pauline is wrapped around the fact that since she is invisible, she is a nobody. However, this is changed when Fleur comes into town and teaches her that YOU are in charge of who YOU want to be, and she does just that. These two woman find FREEDOM from their individuality/"outcast-hood".
On the other side of the spectrum we have Lahiri, the author of "Mrs. Sen's". Lahiri writees of two characters as well, Mrs. Sens and Elliot. Both characters are outcasts in their own ways. Mrs. Sens is still trying to adapt to the American culture, while Elliot is just trying to find himself and look beyond the life that he leads. The end of the story leaves the reader pondering, as it does not end with your typical "happy-ending". Mrs. Sens is forced to the farthest point where she can no longer strive to be independent. Elliot is left home alone, no longer with a babysitter. Lahiri seems to propose that there is not always a happy ending. **While being an outcast can give you freedom, freedom is often lonely.
One can summarize that being an outcast has both positive and negative aspects.
Courtney Bisher, Post 1 Comparison
According to Alice Walker, "one cannot truly have freedom unless one becomes an outcast". This "theory" can be compared in both her poem, "Be Nobody's Darling", as well as in other works of writing that we have read in class thus far. The interpretation and definition of an "outcast" is both familiar among everyone, as well as a bit different, depending on the person. One, like Alice Walker, would define an outcast as an individual that is to be proud to be different and stand apart from the rest. However, an outcast can be also be looked upon as someone who does not fit in, someone who you would not want to be.
In comparison to other readings, "Fleur", and "Mrs. Sen's", "Be Nobody's Darling" is the simplest. Both Erdich, and Lahiri choose to focus on two characters in one scenario, as two different retrospects. They do this, whereas Walker seems to propose to a wider audience, where everyone that feels left out can find unity and hope in her words. When it comes to having true freedom with being an outcast, I can configure that Erdich would agree while Lahiri would not agree.
Erdich, the author of "Fluer" writes of two characters, Fleur and Pauline, Pauline being the narrator. One can gather that from Fleur's eyes, "outcast-hood" is individualism, as well as freedom. She chooses to live her live anew when moving to the new town. Although she is described by Pauline as one who could brighten up a room with her good looks, Fleur sees beyond that in regards to simply living easy. Based upon her past of being mysterious and practically being shunned away from her old town, Fleur starts new, showing to Pauline that being an outcast simply makes you an individual and you must make yourself happy. Pauline, however, sees things in a different light. Towards the beginning, Pauline is lost in herself and is invisible to everyone else. Pauline is wrapped around the fact that since she is invisible, she is a nobody. However, this is changed when Fleur comes into town and teaches her that YOU are in charge of who YOU want to be, and she does just that. These two woman find FREEDOM from their individuality/"outcast-hood".
On the other side of the spectrum we have Lahiri, the author of "Mrs. Sen's". Lahiri writees of two characters as well, Mrs. Sens and Elliot. Both characters are outcasts in their own ways. Mrs. Sens is still trying to adapt to the American culture, while Elliot is just trying to find himself and look beyond the life that he leads. The end of the story leaves the reader pondering, as it does not end with your typical "happy-ending". Mrs. Sens is forced to the farthest point where she can no longer strive to be independent. Elliot is left home alone, no longer with a babysitter. Lahiri seems to propose that there is not always a happy ending. **While being an outcast can give you freedom, freedom is often lonely.
One can summarize that being an outcast has both positive and negative aspects.
Courtney Bisher, Post 1 Comparison
Steven Wells Blog #1
I believe that the characters in "No Name Woman" and "Fleur" have their story told by outside narrators for a few reasons. One reason is for them to have a sense of mystery associated with them. You don't ever really know if Fleur is a witch who kills people, or if it is just rumor. If the story was told from Fleur's perspective, then it would be a lot more straight forward. The same goes for the aunt in "No Name Woman". You learn everything about her just from other people think about her. You never really know if she was raped or not, or who she had sex with. If she was able to speak in her own voice, then she would probably tell us what really happened and be able to explain many rumors to us.
The main reason why these two characters are told by outside narrators is to allow us to see why they are an outcast. These two characters are outcasts because of the way people view them. They could be normal people like everyone else, but many people jump to conclusions and make rumors about them, not even knowing if the rumors are true. These stories being told from outside narrators made me see why we can wrongfully label people as outcasts.
The main reason why these two characters are told by outside narrators is to allow us to see why they are an outcast. These two characters are outcasts because of the way people view them. They could be normal people like everyone else, but many people jump to conclusions and make rumors about them, not even knowing if the rumors are true. These stories being told from outside narrators made me see why we can wrongfully label people as outcasts.
Pam's Post
Both Jhumpa Lahiri’s “Mrs. Sen” and Maxine Hong Kingston's "No Name Woman" contain characters of different cultures; Mrs. Sen is of Indian heritage in, “Mrs. Sen”, and speaker of , “No Name Woman”, is of Asian decent. Both characters display a struggle with their place in American culture in relation to their traditional ways. Mrs. Sen sets up her home in a simply, Indian way with many rugs, colours, and always makes dinner for her husband, never ordering out. She does not know how to drive therefore limiting her freedom and dresses traditionally, in a sari. The speaker in, “No Name Woman”, displays herself as torn between acting as though her aunt that brought shame to her family never existed in order to maintain honour for her family or to remember her aunt, which could be turbulent.
The main difference between these two characters is that although Mrs. Sen tried to break her own boundaries, she failed to push herself after her failure in driving while the speaker in, “No Name Woman”, knows no limits. She, in a sense, went a step further; she pushed her own boundary lines, disregarding her instructions of her mother which were to never think about her aunt ever. By publishing a work about her aunt and the hardship that she faced with her adultery, bearing a child from that, and her suicide, she is keeping her aunts memory alive. Mrs. Sen does makes an effort to gain freedom by driving but let her fear eat away at any chance of that. When she finally decides to go to the market, without Mr. Sen or a license, she crashes and cries in her room after leaving the reader unsure of what happens to her in the end.
Pam Kawalerski
Post #1
The main difference between these two characters is that although Mrs. Sen tried to break her own boundaries, she failed to push herself after her failure in driving while the speaker in, “No Name Woman”, knows no limits. She, in a sense, went a step further; she pushed her own boundary lines, disregarding her instructions of her mother which were to never think about her aunt ever. By publishing a work about her aunt and the hardship that she faced with her adultery, bearing a child from that, and her suicide, she is keeping her aunts memory alive. Mrs. Sen does makes an effort to gain freedom by driving but let her fear eat away at any chance of that. When she finally decides to go to the market, without Mr. Sen or a license, she crashes and cries in her room after leaving the reader unsure of what happens to her in the end.
Pam Kawalerski
Post #1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)