Invisible Man entry 1)

This book starts off by explaining that the narrator is an “invisible man” but “no, I am not a spook like those who haunted Edgar Allen Poe; nor am I of your Hollywood-movie ectoplasms” (3). I enjoyed how this book started and it even made me laugh a little, because when I first learned that we were reading the book Invisible Man I foolishly thought that it was the book with the actual invisible man. The narrator explains that the fact that he is an “invisible man” serves him with both pros and cons. It then continues on to an incident where the narrator runs into a white man who calls him an insult that the narrator wants him to apologize for. This incident almost brings the narrator to kill the white man, but he then comes to his senses and decides to leave. Then after a few other events pass by the narrator explains a dream that he has in a church where he hears a black woman confess that she loves her white master for giving her two sons, but then turns kind of dark when she explains that she poisoned him in order to save him from being “torn apart” from her sons. What’s the deal with that? Why did these two sons want to kill their father? It just does not make sense to me at all, and what an awful dream to have. The narrator then continues on by explaining some of the narrator’s background starting with his grandparents after the Civil War who knew that even though they had become free from slavery they still would not be considered equal to other people during this time in American History and how this was a struggle that they had. The invisible man then continues on by relaying the time where he had to give a speech to a group of white men in which afterwards he was given a scholarship to college and a briefcase. Before the speech though there was a strange “boxing match” were a naked white woman with an American flag walked around and the two black boxers were threatened to look and not look at the woman by different white men. Why was did this incident occur and did anything like this ever actually happen or is this just something to make the story more extreme? If anything like this actually did happen then I am honestly kind of horrified. How did this incident make you feel?

Nick Beck

A Tale of Two Cites Entry 1:
Charles Dickins starts off this story by first explaining the setting, “it was the best of times it, it was the worst of times”. France was extremely bloody, the revolution would start in about 10 years, America was about to break away from Britain, and Britain had their own problems. Mr. Lorry when he is riding in a carriage gets a message telling him to wait for a woman and he replies with “Recalled to Life”. Later we find out that this is what he has been called to do to a man named Manette, who has been locked away for a number of years with the help of Manette`s daughter Lucie, who had thought he was dead. Why do you think that they are going to recall this man to life? Is he important? I mean he obviously must be if all of this is done in secret and he has been locked away all of this time. Why do you think that when Manette was asked what his name was he replied, “One hundred and five, North Tower? I think that he must have been locked away in prison or something even before he was locked up in the wine shop. Speaking of the wine what do you think was the deal with the man who when the wine was spilled dipped his finger in and wrote “blood” on the wall of a building? The only answer I could think of was that it had to do with the revolution that was about to start in France, only a few years in the future. I only say that because of the three revolutionaries all referred to as Jacques in the wine shop looking at Manette. Do you think that Manette will have anything to do with the revolution?

Jaden Stevenson

Mrs. Disher

AP Literature pd. 3

2/8/18

Reader-Response: Death of a Salesman

            Arthur Miller’s play titled Death of a Salesman follows the life of a man named Willy along with his two sons Biff and Happy and also his wife Linda. Willy is and has been a salesman for most of his life, he chose this life because he believed it would bring him closer to obtaining the “American Dream” type of life. However, after all this time, Willy has finally realized that this path he chose to go down has brought him no closer to his dream. As explained by Willy, “After all the highways, and the appointments, and the years, you end up worth more dead than alive” (act 2). I believe that the point Arthur wants to make to his audience when they read this story is that the “American Dream” that so many people fantasizes about and strive for is not all that great. Through this story Miller demonstrates that even with years of hard work spent on making a better life for yourself can leave you unsatisfied and empty. It is in this state that we originally find Willy in at the start of the play and it is this state of mind that eventually leads Willy to take his own life.

            We see this hopelessness manifest in not only Willy, but also in his son Biff. Biff exclaims to his father, “I realized what a ridiculous lie my whole life has been” (act 2). Another quote to ponder, “Why am I trying to become what I don’t want to be…when all I want is out there, waiting for me the minute I say I know who I am” (act 2). Both of these statements cause me to wonder, does Miller believe that there is any hope in pursuing the American Dream? A quick glance through the novel might lead one to believe that there is no actual hope, however I see it as you must find what you hope for. In other words the American Dream cannot be a universal ideal. The American Dream must become YOUR American Dream, set goals and work hard to accomplish them. If the path you have chosen to achieve these goals fails to meet your expectations, then forge a new path!

Quote: "Willy (slapping her bottom): Right, Well, bottoms up! The Woman:(He suddenly grabs her and kisses her roughly.) You kill me. And thanks for the stockings. I love a lot of stockings. Well, good night. Willy: Good night. And keep your pores open! The Woman: Oh, Willy!"(26).
Response: This encounter definitely caught me off guard. I understand that this play is set back in a different time but I honestly wasn't ready, and in the quotes that follow it appears that Linda is close by or at least close enough to know what is going on. This was all a little unsettling and it seemed unnecessary. I do not feel as though Willy had to do what he did and he especially did not have to do it in front of his wife! Makes me question what he does when she is not around. 

Julius Caesar entry 1) 

The play Julius Caesar, written by William Shakespeare, begins with two tribunes named Flavius and Murellus are walking through the city and happen to see many citizens wandering around and not working. They soon discover that the reason the people are wandering around rather than working is because they all wish to see Julius Caesar’s parade through the streets after his latest victory over the sons of the deceased Roman general Pompey, who is a rival of Caesar’s. Upon hearing this from one citizen Murellus becomes angered by the citizens not wanting to return to work. Next the two men begin to down-play Caesar’s victory by making it sound like it really isn’t anything that special. “What conquest brings he home? What tributaries follow him to Rome? To grace in captive bonds his chariot wheels?” (scene 1 act 1 lines 31-33). My first question is why do you think that Flavius and Murellus are trying to make it sound like Caesar’s victory really isn’t that great? Why would they not agree with the cobbler and want to join in the celebration? Also why do you think that Flavius and Murellus are so angry with everyone wanting to see Julius Caesar? Next Flavius instructs Murellus to go to a temple and remove any crowns that people have placed on statues of Ceasar saying, “these growing feathers plucked from Caesar’s wing will make him fly an ordinary pitch” (1.1.71-72). So are they basically saying that they should show the people that Caesar is not someone special or someone that should be looked up to? Why are they so against Caesar and his accomplishments? They may not like the guy, but it sounds like the people do and it sounds like he has done pretty well for Rome. Do you think that the people like Caesar so much because they only see the great things he has done and do not really know the kind of person that he is and it is only the people close to Caesar or higher up in status that know who he is? Or do you think that Flavius and Murellus are just very jealous of the attention that Caesar is getting from these people?