Sunday, April 5, 2009
Movie Reaction
“Twelve Angry Men” a movie directed by Sidney Lumet, is about a jury case on a teenager accused of killing his father. Written in 1957 by Reginald Rose you know the consequences for such a crime is high. This kid was being tried for murder and he was getting the death sentence. Twelve men, who knew nothing about each other, were in charge of this child’s fate. All of the evidence was against him and it seems the jurors would have an easy job. I could not believe it when that one man voted not guilty, but I could understand. Putting a human being away to death is not an easy task. This is what made it so interesting.
The child had a neutral face; it was innocent enough to make him look not guilty, but he did have the look, also, of a crazy person. The one man who voted not guilty gave me a feeling of gratitude because I knew I wasn’t the only one. We shared the same belief. What made him stand out was in the midst of people who didn’t care about whether this child lived or died because it did nothing to them, he gave it doubt. These people weren’t all bad people either, but they just did not care. This similarly describes the attitude of people towards each other today. They really do not think about what could happen, and what did as long as it does not affect them. They are just worried about getting theirs, like the man that wanted to go to his baseball game, and really do not care much about what happens to others (this idea is generally what drives war as well). All of the characters’ unique personalities were also quite attractive as well. Every person had a specific idea, trait, skill, etc. that worked on this case and helped bring everything together. Even those who disliked the boy for good or bad reasons had their moments that brought about truth. This really made the movie more enjoyable.
The best part was the pieces of evidence become easily disproved while every jury member changes their minds. The pieces of evidence initially sounded like the boy was completely guilty, but given a little thought and examination the holes between the pieces of evidence were easily seen. This was very enjoyable to me because I love it when things with little relation come together. This is where character’s knowledge began to come together for the better of the case. The setting was perfect as well. The weather was a scorcher—the hottest day of the year as juror #7 called it. It was a perfect metaphor of how tensions were already high within the jury room because things immediately went off with a bang. When six of the jurors were convinced that the accused was not guilty, it became cloudy and a storm was rolling in. This was because the six easy ones were already convinced and the next six would be the hardest to get over and emotional tenses would turn into a storm.
In the beginning, I immediately disapproved of this movie because I was not a big fan of black and white movies. They always seemed to bore me to sleep, and I was more into the modern movies of my time. Older movies I could hardly understand as well because most of them had deeper meanings or at least a different way of getting to them. This one was different though, because there was always something going on in the case solving mystery. The setting was so simple, it only took place in one building and less than ten minutes was contributed outside of the one juror’s room. This kept the movie right at the main focus the whole time and the emotional turmoil kept turning up which made the movie even easier to watch. I was so surprised at how something so simple could not only be so complex, but entertaining as well. The plot was also simple enough for me to understand and follow as well as predict what may happen next. It kept unraveling like a good book as more and more was put out on the table, both literally and figuratively. All of these things made “12 Angry Men” the first black and white movie that I ever enjoyed and a great old style movie with modern issues. It is very easy to see how such a movie could have won three academy awards.
The child had a neutral face; it was innocent enough to make him look not guilty, but he did have the look, also, of a crazy person. The one man who voted not guilty gave me a feeling of gratitude because I knew I wasn’t the only one. We shared the same belief. What made him stand out was in the midst of people who didn’t care about whether this child lived or died because it did nothing to them, he gave it doubt. These people weren’t all bad people either, but they just did not care. This similarly describes the attitude of people towards each other today. They really do not think about what could happen, and what did as long as it does not affect them. They are just worried about getting theirs, like the man that wanted to go to his baseball game, and really do not care much about what happens to others (this idea is generally what drives war as well). All of the characters’ unique personalities were also quite attractive as well. Every person had a specific idea, trait, skill, etc. that worked on this case and helped bring everything together. Even those who disliked the boy for good or bad reasons had their moments that brought about truth. This really made the movie more enjoyable.
The best part was the pieces of evidence become easily disproved while every jury member changes their minds. The pieces of evidence initially sounded like the boy was completely guilty, but given a little thought and examination the holes between the pieces of evidence were easily seen. This was very enjoyable to me because I love it when things with little relation come together. This is where character’s knowledge began to come together for the better of the case. The setting was perfect as well. The weather was a scorcher—the hottest day of the year as juror #7 called it. It was a perfect metaphor of how tensions were already high within the jury room because things immediately went off with a bang. When six of the jurors were convinced that the accused was not guilty, it became cloudy and a storm was rolling in. This was because the six easy ones were already convinced and the next six would be the hardest to get over and emotional tenses would turn into a storm.
In the beginning, I immediately disapproved of this movie because I was not a big fan of black and white movies. They always seemed to bore me to sleep, and I was more into the modern movies of my time. Older movies I could hardly understand as well because most of them had deeper meanings or at least a different way of getting to them. This one was different though, because there was always something going on in the case solving mystery. The setting was so simple, it only took place in one building and less than ten minutes was contributed outside of the one juror’s room. This kept the movie right at the main focus the whole time and the emotional turmoil kept turning up which made the movie even easier to watch. I was so surprised at how something so simple could not only be so complex, but entertaining as well. The plot was also simple enough for me to understand and follow as well as predict what may happen next. It kept unraveling like a good book as more and more was put out on the table, both literally and figuratively. All of these things made “12 Angry Men” the first black and white movie that I ever enjoyed and a great old style movie with modern issues. It is very easy to see how such a movie could have won three academy awards.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Poet Analysis
Langston Hughes
1. Besides the Mississippi River that is in the United States of America, all the rivers he speaks of are in Africa. In literal terms, these are quite famous rivers, but also, these rivers are all the sites of major events of his life. They represent the struggle, growth, pain and accomplishments throughout not just his life, but the generations of African Americans. All of these rivers are also sites of literal struggles (war battles) as well.
2. He literally is the darker brother because he is black, but he is the side of society that is hidden and ignored from the world. It is a poem about racism. The white man tells the black man to eat in the kitchen to keep him hidden from company or the world, but as he is hidden he grows stronger and soon won’t be able to be ignored. That’s when he will “eat at the table” or share the benefits of white people as well. He also calls himself a “brother” because Hughes tries to show that we are all connected as one people and should not be segregated against. America is the land of equality, yet everyone is not equal. Blacks have always been counted as less than an American and he will shatter this ancient tradition shown though his title, “I Too” meaning, I too am human, I too am an American.
3. In this poem white supremacy prevails here. The boy is never listened to and the white man again leaves him and doesn’t believe him. This is exactly what black activists were trying to get rid of. Dubois and Locke would have disagreed about the negative talk towards the blacks. All of the degradation within the poem is not true about the beautiful black race.
4. McKay is a lot rougher on his poetry than Hughes is. McKay uses harsher syntax and tales and messages that put an aggressive look onto racism. It pumps everyone up ready to hate or fight against the struggles they have, while Hughes is calmer. He takes a more subtle step in his structure and writing. He flows more within his writing and tells us what struggles go on and how we can endure them, while McKay says something more like “This is the struggle, let’s end it!”
5. He was objecting to white people stealing black music and making it their own. They used blacks’ stories and cultures to keep them down. The whites also put their own little pieces in black cultures to “whiten it up” so to speak. This still goes on today, but not as badly as it did before.
6. Hughes talks more about America because America is the land with the problem. They’re supposed to be the land of the free, but they have the most divided country. It’s the land of opportunity for whites only. Africa has its issues, but they are not as violent and down-heartening on their people as America is. He does mention Africa sometimes because he want s to show everyone that he remembers where he came from and to remind them of their heritage.
Claude McKay
1. A harlot can be a common man with a low birth in society (peasant is an extreme, but accurate synonym). McKay uses this word to downgrade those Pharaohs and people who believe they’re over blacks or any other human. At the end of his poem he reminds us that after every day, our work is nothing compared to the mighty nations God created and his works under the sun.
2. He refers, in the beginning to us as “hogs” because we allow ourselves to be shut down by the white animals that contained us. As the poem goes on, we become the men who fight off the pathetic animals who try to stop our talents. Blacks saw us as no more than dogs. We were pets to them, just there to serve at their whim as slaves. Soon, though at the end of the poem, they become the dogs as we take our freedom.
3. McKay has more aggression to his messages. Instead of just stating the issues, he embraces them and puts his anger and the pride of all blacks together. His words and the way his poem flows gives it this effect. He also uses it to reach everybody for blacks to eventually rise up and whites to realize us as a people. Eventually he hopes that whites will realize this so all of the battles he puts in his poems will not have to come true. We can become equal without violence and his poems are a warning of what will happen if black people are kept condemned.
1. Besides the Mississippi River that is in the United States of America, all the rivers he speaks of are in Africa. In literal terms, these are quite famous rivers, but also, these rivers are all the sites of major events of his life. They represent the struggle, growth, pain and accomplishments throughout not just his life, but the generations of African Americans. All of these rivers are also sites of literal struggles (war battles) as well.
2. He literally is the darker brother because he is black, but he is the side of society that is hidden and ignored from the world. It is a poem about racism. The white man tells the black man to eat in the kitchen to keep him hidden from company or the world, but as he is hidden he grows stronger and soon won’t be able to be ignored. That’s when he will “eat at the table” or share the benefits of white people as well. He also calls himself a “brother” because Hughes tries to show that we are all connected as one people and should not be segregated against. America is the land of equality, yet everyone is not equal. Blacks have always been counted as less than an American and he will shatter this ancient tradition shown though his title, “I Too” meaning, I too am human, I too am an American.
3. In this poem white supremacy prevails here. The boy is never listened to and the white man again leaves him and doesn’t believe him. This is exactly what black activists were trying to get rid of. Dubois and Locke would have disagreed about the negative talk towards the blacks. All of the degradation within the poem is not true about the beautiful black race.
4. McKay is a lot rougher on his poetry than Hughes is. McKay uses harsher syntax and tales and messages that put an aggressive look onto racism. It pumps everyone up ready to hate or fight against the struggles they have, while Hughes is calmer. He takes a more subtle step in his structure and writing. He flows more within his writing and tells us what struggles go on and how we can endure them, while McKay says something more like “This is the struggle, let’s end it!”
5. He was objecting to white people stealing black music and making it their own. They used blacks’ stories and cultures to keep them down. The whites also put their own little pieces in black cultures to “whiten it up” so to speak. This still goes on today, but not as badly as it did before.
6. Hughes talks more about America because America is the land with the problem. They’re supposed to be the land of the free, but they have the most divided country. It’s the land of opportunity for whites only. Africa has its issues, but they are not as violent and down-heartening on their people as America is. He does mention Africa sometimes because he want s to show everyone that he remembers where he came from and to remind them of their heritage.
Claude McKay
1. A harlot can be a common man with a low birth in society (peasant is an extreme, but accurate synonym). McKay uses this word to downgrade those Pharaohs and people who believe they’re over blacks or any other human. At the end of his poem he reminds us that after every day, our work is nothing compared to the mighty nations God created and his works under the sun.
2. He refers, in the beginning to us as “hogs” because we allow ourselves to be shut down by the white animals that contained us. As the poem goes on, we become the men who fight off the pathetic animals who try to stop our talents. Blacks saw us as no more than dogs. We were pets to them, just there to serve at their whim as slaves. Soon, though at the end of the poem, they become the dogs as we take our freedom.
3. McKay has more aggression to his messages. Instead of just stating the issues, he embraces them and puts his anger and the pride of all blacks together. His words and the way his poem flows gives it this effect. He also uses it to reach everybody for blacks to eventually rise up and whites to realize us as a people. Eventually he hopes that whites will realize this so all of the battles he puts in his poems will not have to come true. We can become equal without violence and his poems are a warning of what will happen if black people are kept condemned.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Apply Question
For those who can't remember, here it is: Write a short paragraph about someone, you know with the use of repetition, to express a tone of admiration.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Their Eyes Were Watching God Quote
“She knew now that marriage did not make love. Her dream was dead, so she became a woman,” (Hurston 25)
This quote really sticks out within the story and is a big eye catcher to be in the first twenty-five pages. It shows how quickly Zora jumps right into deeper meaning within her stories. This phrase caught a lot of my attention because it makes you think. It reveals truth in some respects. Hurston uses this statement as a major attention getter and one of the many rhetorical phrases in her story. The two truths are that marriage does not make love and dreams.
Our first truth is very self-explanatory. Marriage will not create love in the future. Janie found this out when she married Logan, a man she never loved. One big mistake that most people make today is waiting for love to come and just rushing into marriage when love is what marriage should be based off of anyway. Without that there is nothing to keep the two of you together when things get hard. It’s the sticky adhesive, supposedly unbreakable bond that keeps a couple together, but at this day and age that glue has been getting weak and dry. Love is becoming dry to only last a few years instead of when love lasted forever. A bond so strong cannot be created by anything other than the intertwined souls of two separate spirits and that is not what marriage is. Marriage is the public declaration of this bondage and legal unification, but is also a life-changing decision, commitment, agreement, and bonding. With this book being written in the early 20th century it is possible that Hurston saw that the main thing that kept this together, love, was becoming less noticed and warned us against it.
Another point she had was about Janie’s dreams. Janie claims that she was not grown enough when her Nanny said that she was now a woman. Janie was not ready for this, but it happened. She wanted to live young for a longer time like she was before. She then realized that this was not possible so her plans, her dreams died. Here Hurston says that “she became a woman,” (Hurston 25). It is true though that when you get older and eventually become grown some of your dreams—in some cases most or all dreams—die along with your younger years. Everything that you wanted to be or do you then realize you can neither do nor do so easily. Reality crashes in and it alters your vision. You begin to see the difference between reality and dreams and you must wake up. It makes you think your dreams are impossible and twists what really is possible. Once you realize that it is claimed that you reach another level in growing up—you reach another level in maturity. Hurston says that Janie realized this and became a woman, showing that just like that, she knew the struggle and sacrifices of womanhood. Once you are grown certain things are given up for your own future and the people around you. Hurston showed us that this was another level in maturity and one of life’s unfortunate lessons that does not go well when learned the hard way, especially when Janie was just crying when she realized it.
To conclude, there was a large message in this little phrase within the book. Love is not being used to keep lives together as it should be and it cannot be recreated by marriage. Also the dreams that you once had are slowly eroded as you become older and this is a new level of maturity and a painful life lesson. Hurston gives off many more messages within her book which makes it an entertaining book as well as education about what a textbook can’t teach you: life lessons.
This quote really sticks out within the story and is a big eye catcher to be in the first twenty-five pages. It shows how quickly Zora jumps right into deeper meaning within her stories. This phrase caught a lot of my attention because it makes you think. It reveals truth in some respects. Hurston uses this statement as a major attention getter and one of the many rhetorical phrases in her story. The two truths are that marriage does not make love and dreams.
Our first truth is very self-explanatory. Marriage will not create love in the future. Janie found this out when she married Logan, a man she never loved. One big mistake that most people make today is waiting for love to come and just rushing into marriage when love is what marriage should be based off of anyway. Without that there is nothing to keep the two of you together when things get hard. It’s the sticky adhesive, supposedly unbreakable bond that keeps a couple together, but at this day and age that glue has been getting weak and dry. Love is becoming dry to only last a few years instead of when love lasted forever. A bond so strong cannot be created by anything other than the intertwined souls of two separate spirits and that is not what marriage is. Marriage is the public declaration of this bondage and legal unification, but is also a life-changing decision, commitment, agreement, and bonding. With this book being written in the early 20th century it is possible that Hurston saw that the main thing that kept this together, love, was becoming less noticed and warned us against it.
Another point she had was about Janie’s dreams. Janie claims that she was not grown enough when her Nanny said that she was now a woman. Janie was not ready for this, but it happened. She wanted to live young for a longer time like she was before. She then realized that this was not possible so her plans, her dreams died. Here Hurston says that “she became a woman,” (Hurston 25). It is true though that when you get older and eventually become grown some of your dreams—in some cases most or all dreams—die along with your younger years. Everything that you wanted to be or do you then realize you can neither do nor do so easily. Reality crashes in and it alters your vision. You begin to see the difference between reality and dreams and you must wake up. It makes you think your dreams are impossible and twists what really is possible. Once you realize that it is claimed that you reach another level in growing up—you reach another level in maturity. Hurston says that Janie realized this and became a woman, showing that just like that, she knew the struggle and sacrifices of womanhood. Once you are grown certain things are given up for your own future and the people around you. Hurston showed us that this was another level in maturity and one of life’s unfortunate lessons that does not go well when learned the hard way, especially when Janie was just crying when she realized it.
To conclude, there was a large message in this little phrase within the book. Love is not being used to keep lives together as it should be and it cannot be recreated by marriage. Also the dreams that you once had are slowly eroded as you become older and this is a new level of maturity and a painful life lesson. Hurston gives off many more messages within her book which makes it an entertaining book as well as education about what a textbook can’t teach you: life lessons.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Glaspell
Glaspell uses a wide variety of symbolism to give out certain ideas about what happened in this house. There was a crime set and the items are rhetorically showing the idea, but not logically which is why they say that there is really no evidence. Glaspell uses the objects at the crime scene not only to prove the woman guilty, but he gives the differences of detective work between the men and the ladies which led them each, to their differing conclusions. He creates a dual-sleuth atmosphere where each group comes up with a conclusion with their own sets of evidence.
The ladies talk about Ms. Wright alone while they walk around the house. They Mrs. Hale claimed, “Wright was closed,” indirectly meaning that she kept everything to herself (Glaspell 14). She kept all of her emotions inside and when they decide to come out, it can be dangerous, specifically for her husband. Not only was she closed, but she claimed that Mrs. Wright and her husband did not get together. That definitely is not a good thing for a bottled up woman. Also the description of the things she had sitting around her house—her rotten fruit, the half-clean half-dirty towel, the quilt, and the bird cage—raises some eyebrows about that really went on there that left her stuff that way. Then men laughed as the women wondered if Mrs. Wright was going to quilt or knot her sowing design (Glaspell 17). They also find another one that is nice at the start but messy and incomplete near the end which is a symbol of her marriage (Glaspell 18). Her marriage began very nice, as every marriage does, but then it got messy and was incomplete by the end with “bad sewing” or issues in the marriage. The men don’t touch or even pay attention to the sewing which is also their marriage while the relationship and motive is all the ladies talk about. The women are underestimated in this story, but it is them who come up with the actual case.
Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters also found the most important piece of evidence. There was a bird that had its neck wrung until it was dead. This canary could be the spirit of Mrs. Wright that was killed by Mr. Wright —which could explain the sewing—since Mrs. Hale knew Mr. Wright (Glaspell 26). In return she killed him the exact same way he killed her. Here is the motive for what she did. This idea is also proven by the interview Hale had with Mrs. Wright when he asked for Mr. Wright and she laughed and said “He’s dead,” (Glaspell 6). These women knew what they were talking about because most of the attention was given to the women in the story as the men did their searching. As the men neglect their ideas they end up being exactly right. The case could not be completely solved with just the sheriff and attorney’s work because they did not have a motive. The women found that easily. It can be said that Glaspell mocks their detective work because the attention is all on the women and they knew the victim and suspect and claims them as smarter. Mrs. Wright was also smarter because such a simple way of murdering someone and an easy lie led them to a dead end. It is obvious that she did it, but they cannot prove it. The women’s gossip led them where the men’s evidence stopped along with the evidence and the untidiness of the house splits their methods, and gives a complete case to the audience, but leaves the characters in the dark.
The ladies talk about Ms. Wright alone while they walk around the house. They Mrs. Hale claimed, “Wright was closed,” indirectly meaning that she kept everything to herself (Glaspell 14). She kept all of her emotions inside and when they decide to come out, it can be dangerous, specifically for her husband. Not only was she closed, but she claimed that Mrs. Wright and her husband did not get together. That definitely is not a good thing for a bottled up woman. Also the description of the things she had sitting around her house—her rotten fruit, the half-clean half-dirty towel, the quilt, and the bird cage—raises some eyebrows about that really went on there that left her stuff that way. Then men laughed as the women wondered if Mrs. Wright was going to quilt or knot her sowing design (Glaspell 17). They also find another one that is nice at the start but messy and incomplete near the end which is a symbol of her marriage (Glaspell 18). Her marriage began very nice, as every marriage does, but then it got messy and was incomplete by the end with “bad sewing” or issues in the marriage. The men don’t touch or even pay attention to the sewing which is also their marriage while the relationship and motive is all the ladies talk about. The women are underestimated in this story, but it is them who come up with the actual case.
Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters also found the most important piece of evidence. There was a bird that had its neck wrung until it was dead. This canary could be the spirit of Mrs. Wright that was killed by Mr. Wright —which could explain the sewing—since Mrs. Hale knew Mr. Wright (Glaspell 26). In return she killed him the exact same way he killed her. Here is the motive for what she did. This idea is also proven by the interview Hale had with Mrs. Wright when he asked for Mr. Wright and she laughed and said “He’s dead,” (Glaspell 6). These women knew what they were talking about because most of the attention was given to the women in the story as the men did their searching. As the men neglect their ideas they end up being exactly right. The case could not be completely solved with just the sheriff and attorney’s work because they did not have a motive. The women found that easily. It can be said that Glaspell mocks their detective work because the attention is all on the women and they knew the victim and suspect and claims them as smarter. Mrs. Wright was also smarter because such a simple way of murdering someone and an easy lie led them to a dead end. It is obvious that she did it, but they cannot prove it. The women’s gossip led them where the men’s evidence stopped along with the evidence and the untidiness of the house splits their methods, and gives a complete case to the audience, but leaves the characters in the dark.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Bernice is A BEAST!!! lol
During a period of time (most likely shift from 19th to 20th century) the social structures of women began to change. The things that women were allowed to do began to significantly differ from the old times to the coming century which sparked a whole new idea and personality of the “common woman”. The old “cult of domesticity” women were considered obsolete and the new age of women (called that due to lack of a better name) was ready to take their place. This is where conflict came in and these weren’t always pretty, as Fitzgerald described with the story “Bernice Bobs Her Hair”. The two main characters, Bernice and Marjorie, are symbols of the strong impact and influence on one towards the other.
Their conflict can be compared to a conflict between animals. When these two animals (referring to differing ideas) meet, one tries to get its influence over the other. Whoever is weaker, more passive, or not up to the challenge, must submit to the victor. This is much like the battle between the cult of domesticity and the new age. Marjorie continuously mocked the older women with her sarcasm and strict tone towards her argument with Bernice saying things like, “Yes they were—not!” and “The womanly woman!” (Fitzgerald 8). Marjorie had her ways of attracting people and Bernice had her own ways, but Marjorie was able to attract more people and just seeing the older ways of attracting made her sick. When Marjorie challenged Bernice she only had the choice of doing what she was thinking about doing in the first place, leaving, or submitting into the ideas and power of the new woman. Marjorie had a louder bark than Bernice so it influenced her. In this instance it was strong enough to turn Bernice into something she wasn’t, both literally and figuratively. Her desperate attempt for popularity caused her to cut her beautiful hair, and doing that was like cutting away at her soul or her confidence (much like the biblical tale Samson and Delilah). Bernice also became something she was not using her new methods given by her cousin to attract attention. It gave her the crazy idea of bobbing her hair. The best thing which Fitzgerald implied was that each woman should just live their own lives.
To conclude, “Bernice Bobs Her Hair” is a great symbol and story of the conflicts between the cult of true womanhood and the new age. These conflicting ages were sometimes very dangerous, but were necessary because there was no way the two could have compromised, being complete opposites. The cult of true womanhood was the general idea because men did everything else while the women sat around the house and pretty much served everyone else. The new age of women was much different because they were actually working women that could be independent and had more power to do things. This new privilege kept from them for so many years made them change their submissive attitude because men were no longer the focus of their attention. It was now getting/keeping a job, and with them doing this, they did not need to depend entirely on men. These two clashing forces were formidable opponents, but Fitzgerald made it seem that the new woman can overtake the old woman. There was one last message that was given out at the very end of the story though and it was shown through Bernice’s drastic action: Don’t ever count the old style of women out.
Their conflict can be compared to a conflict between animals. When these two animals (referring to differing ideas) meet, one tries to get its influence over the other. Whoever is weaker, more passive, or not up to the challenge, must submit to the victor. This is much like the battle between the cult of domesticity and the new age. Marjorie continuously mocked the older women with her sarcasm and strict tone towards her argument with Bernice saying things like, “Yes they were—not!” and “The womanly woman!” (Fitzgerald 8). Marjorie had her ways of attracting people and Bernice had her own ways, but Marjorie was able to attract more people and just seeing the older ways of attracting made her sick. When Marjorie challenged Bernice she only had the choice of doing what she was thinking about doing in the first place, leaving, or submitting into the ideas and power of the new woman. Marjorie had a louder bark than Bernice so it influenced her. In this instance it was strong enough to turn Bernice into something she wasn’t, both literally and figuratively. Her desperate attempt for popularity caused her to cut her beautiful hair, and doing that was like cutting away at her soul or her confidence (much like the biblical tale Samson and Delilah). Bernice also became something she was not using her new methods given by her cousin to attract attention. It gave her the crazy idea of bobbing her hair. The best thing which Fitzgerald implied was that each woman should just live their own lives.
To conclude, “Bernice Bobs Her Hair” is a great symbol and story of the conflicts between the cult of true womanhood and the new age. These conflicting ages were sometimes very dangerous, but were necessary because there was no way the two could have compromised, being complete opposites. The cult of true womanhood was the general idea because men did everything else while the women sat around the house and pretty much served everyone else. The new age of women was much different because they were actually working women that could be independent and had more power to do things. This new privilege kept from them for so many years made them change their submissive attitude because men were no longer the focus of their attention. It was now getting/keeping a job, and with them doing this, they did not need to depend entirely on men. These two clashing forces were formidable opponents, but Fitzgerald made it seem that the new woman can overtake the old woman. There was one last message that was given out at the very end of the story though and it was shown through Bernice’s drastic action: Don’t ever count the old style of women out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
