Emma's Undeniable Weakness in Volume 1

Our first seminar on Emma was really quite interesting and got me thinking more in depth about Emma as a complex character and the unique dynamics between all of the characters of Highbury. Overall, I am surprised by how enjoyable this novel is because Austen’s writing style is very clever and amusing, which is always a good thing. I have also been pondering Austen’s comment about how Emma is a “heroine whom no one but myself will much like.” At first I was only somewhat perplexed by her views, but now that I have read Volume 1 of the novel, I can see why Austen would make such a blunt statement regarding the main character of her book.

Emma is undeniably a very intelligent and bright young woman, but her character possesses multiple layers that slowly unravel as she encounters new obstacles and dilemmas in her life. Overall, I believe Emma grows tremendously from the beginning of Volume 1 to the end, in respect to her opinions and attitude. At first, Austen reveals Emma’s spoiled and selfish nature, which clearly emphasizes Emma’s natural tendency to get her way. It almost seems as though Emma despises negative changes and innately resists them in any manner that she can. For instance, Miss Taylor’s departure is greatly disturbing to Emma, who laments the fact that she has lost her closest companion, rather than relish in the notion that Miss Taylor is finally content after finding the love of her life (which is what most people would be happy about…except Emma of course). Thus, I think that is why Emma is so compelled to take Harriet under her wing, because she does not want to be lonely, and she must be entertained (because after all, isn’t that what upper class society is about?).

Harriet is the perfect target for Emma, since Emma immediately deems her “free from conceit; only desiring to be guided by any one she looked up to” (23), which is a perfect indication that she is in desperate need of Emma’s help and guidance…or so Emma thinks. Essentially, Emma views Harriet as a project almost, something that she can involve herself in in order to flaunt her own benevolence and generosity for the sake of her appearance. However, Emma’s true intentions in befriending Harriet remain somewhat obscure, as Austen once again manifests the complexity and depth of Emma’s character that is not always immediately apparent and clear. Austen renders Emma’s obscure motives and intentions as even more complicated when Emma assumes that “Harriet would be loved as one to whom she could be useful” since for “Mrs. Weston there was nothing to be done; for Harriet every thing” (23). Throughout Volume 1, I was very confused by Emma’s questionable intentions…are they pure? Also, does Emma truly value her friendship with Harriet or does she just consider it another perk of exerting her influence and control on a helpless being? Also, would Emma still seek to improve to Harriet if Harriet’s parentage clearly indicated that she belonged to England’s lower class society? Although I am not certain as to whether Emma is oblivious to her flaws and the impact she has on Harriet in manipulating her, at the end of Volume 1, it is clear that she has gained some insight on her imperfections (even though it took a whole Volume for her to realize this). After Emma’s brilliant matchmaking plan is ruined, and Mr. Elton confesses that he fancies Emma not Harriet, Emma is at first disturbed by her failure. However, she is finally “obliged, in common honesty, to stop and admit, that her own behavior to [Mr. Elton] had been so complaisant and obliging” and that “it was wrong, to take so active a part in bringing any two people together” (128). Therefore, we clearly see Emma transform from being adamant and headstrong about her infallible matchmaking skills, to a humble and understanding girl who is finally no longer blinded by her enormous mistake.

Impressions of Emma in Volume 1

In the novel Emma by Jane Austen, Emma Woodhouse is an intriguing young girl who seems to be far too spoiled and concerned with the affairs of other people’s lives in the village of Highbury. In the first chapter, Austen promptly warns that Emma’s most detrimental limitation in her character is the fact that she has “rather too much of her own way, and a disposition to think a little too well of herself” (3), which is essentially what we continue to see throughout Volume 1 of the novel. My first impression of Emma is that she is a self-assured, meddlesome, confident, matchmaking, perceptive, and sharp young English girl who has never faced any misfortunes in her life, despite the fact that her mother has died.

 

Emma’s prying tendencies manifest themselves in chapter 3, when we are introduced to Harriet Smith, “a short, plump, and fair [girl], with a fine bloom, blue eyes, light hair…and a look of great sweetness” (20). Emma is immediately taken by Harriet’s gentility and kindness, but more importantly, she is already contemplating a potential suitor for Harriet, a fitting gentleman whom she could marry. Very rapidly, Emma’s inclination to meddle in other people’s lives becomes evident, as she eagerly decides that Mr. Elton and Harriet “would be an excellent match; and only too palpably desirable, natural and probable, for her to have much merit in planning it” (31). This excerpt clearly exemplifies Emma’s somewhat selfish motives for encouraging and advocating this couple, as Austen emphasizes Emma’s profound concern for the originality of her match, and whether it has been thought of before. Thus, in the next few chapters, Emma makes it her number one priority to ensure that Mr. Elton clearly professes his fondness for Harriet, before Robert Martin, a gentleman who Emma considers to be a “very inferior creature” (29), even has a chance at expressing his liking. Emma purposefully degrades Mr. Martin in front of Harriet, and not-so-subtly belittles his suitability by emphasizing his inadequate social standing, which is clearly inappropriate for a woman as beautiful as Harriet.

 

Thus far, I think George Knightley is epitomizes the voice of reason, since he is the only one who has the audacity and nerve to disagree with Emma’s behavior. He a sensible and rational man who expresses his concern regarding the new friendship between Harriet and Emma, and how Harriet is the “very worst sort of companion that Emma could possibly have” because she “looks upon Emma as knowing everything” (35), which is clearly a negative thing because the last thing Emma needs is for someone as ignorant and inexperienced as Harriet to flatter Emma and encourage her meddling attitude. In chapter 8, he is the only one who tries to talk some sense into Emma and to make it clear to her that her “infatuation about [Harriet] blinds [her]” and that Harriet’s social rank is no higher than Mr. Martin’s enough to be a conflicting factor in the union of the two (56). However, Emma is unyielding and stubborn, as she refuses to listen to Mr. Knightley’s realistic and practical explanation, which could be detrimental later on.

 

Overall, I am enjoying the depth of Emma’s seemingly snobbish and proud character, and I am eager to see how Emma’s behavioral qualities will affect her and other characters throughout the novel.

The Enigma of Hamlet's Character

In Shakespeare’s play Hamlet, all of the characters possess great influence over Hamlet and his mentality in grand scheme of things. However, there is far more perplexity and mystery regarding Hamlet’s character because his soul is so complex and his mentality is often deeply inscrutable during the course of the play. Hamlet’s multifaceted character slowly unravels from Act to Act, but as these multiple dimensions to his character are slowly exposed, it only yields more questions instead of answers. It is very difficult to precisely conceive Hamlet’s real nature and individuality because it is often masked by deception, facades, and feigned sanity (or so we are led to believe). Nonetheless, it is fascinating to examine Hamlet’s dark, cynical, sarcastic, insecure, and clever character from various perspectives that can all be rendered true in solely based on interpretation and scrutiny.

At first, Hamlet is completely dejected and woeful after he learns of his father’s untimely death. Even from his very first words in the play, when he says “a little more than kin and less than kind” (1.2.67), Shakespeare intentionally emphasizes Hamlet’s isolation and forlorn character by making his first line an aside. Immediately, we are presented with Hamlet’s deep-rooted seclusion that continually manifests itself throughout the play. Additionally, Hamlet expresses his desolate sentiments towards his mother, clarifying that “‘tis not alone [his] inky cloak…that can denote [him] truly. These indeed “seem,” / For they are actions that a man might play” (1.2.80-87). These powerful lines profoundly encompass the essence of Hamlet’s character in a nutshell. The recurring notions of acting versus being, appearance versus reality, and “is-ing” versus seeming are all portrayed within some of Hamlet’s first words in the entire play. This excerpt also exemplifies Hamlet’s keen and astute understanding of the world around him, as he always relies on insight to perpetrate the truth.

Moreover, Hamlet is highly adept at manipulating and adjusting language in such a witty and intricate manner that is practically incomprehensible by any other less-intelligent character. This aspect of Hamlet’s personality is central to his character’s progression throughout the play, as he once again, further distances himself from others due to his proficient and adept understanding of words, and his remarkably rich vocabulary. However, his vast understanding of language could also be the source of his demise, since Hamlet constantly feels constrained by his own decisiveness and judgment that essentially hinder him from committing the rightful deed of avenging his father. Although Hamlet’s wits are a defense mechanism, they are also an encumbrance and a nuisance to his burning rage and ambitions. His intelligence and essentially his mind are ironically a burden to his soul, because Hamlet is innately compelled to ponder every situation in excess, which causes him to fall into a state of stagnation and immobility in regards to his intended actions.

Similarly, Hamlet can be considered an existentialist, as he believes that only actions have the ability to create man (and man has no essence), but he perpetually questions his existence and purpose in life. This is an especially prevalent concept in Hamlet’s “to be or not to be” speech, in which he truly ruminates and contemplates the core of existentialism and what it means “to be.” This speech is by far, Hamlet’s most pivotal and meaningful soliloquys in the whole play, and his question of human existence truly embodies the whole essence of his character. Hamlet is conflicted in his thoughts as he questions “To be or not to be—that is the question: / Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer…Or to take arms against a sea of troubles” (3.1.64-67), which makes me wonder, is this Hamlet’s tragic flaw? Or is this Hamlet’s madness emerging? Also, is Hamlet in fact a hero or a coward in the end?  

Final Thoughts on Memoirs of a Geisha

I’ve finished my outside reading book, Memoirs of a Geisha, for about a week now, but I wanted to reflect on the quality of Golden’s work and what I thought about the novel. Overall, my sentiments towards the end of the novel are quite conflicting. Even though I wasn’t necessarily disappointed with the ending, I wasn’t quite satisfied either. I’m not in accord with the way Golden decided to portray Sayuri’s decision to end things with Nobu, which was completely unexpected.

I guess I found it difficult to put myself in Sayuri’s shoes, because she is so in love with the Chairman that she is desperate to do anything, at whatever cost (such as pretending to sleep with the minister only to infuriate Nobu), to prevent Nobu from declaring herself as her danna. I understand Sayuri’s emotionally-torn state, but I kind empathize with Nobu because he is a man who is hard to please, yet he professes his love to Sayuri (in an extremely subtle way) despite his seemingly cold and heartless character. Nobu explains, with difficulty, to Sayuri that he doesn’t “much like geisha…But [he’s] always felt that [Sayuri] isn’t exactly like all the others” (Golden 386), which for Nobu, is a big deal, considering how unemotional and unexpressive he usually is. At the same time, however, I understand what Sayuri feels. The Chairman is the only man who showed her compassion and tenderness before she was a geisha. He’s the only man who truly sees the beauty in her soul, which is an extremely unique and rare quality to find in someone. Thus, I understand why Sayuri would feel such an urge to be with the Chairman; after all she’s been through, she deserves to be happy with a man who showed her kindness when her world seemed to be deprived of any scrap of joy or positivity.

The conversation between the Chairman and Sayuri in Chapter 34 is really touching and wonderful, as Sayuri confesses to the Chairman that everything she has done has been “because of [her] feelings for the Chairman. Every step [she has] taken in [her] life since [she] was a child in Gion, has been in the hope of bringing [herself] closer to the [Chairman]” (416), which embodies the whole scope of Sayuri’s journey throughout the novel. The Chairman was there before her transition from a caterpillar to a butterfly, he is the one who led her to her destiny, not Nobu, not the General, and certainly not “Dr. Crabs.” It was always the Chairman, even from the beginning, so much so that Sayuri felt “such a longing to turn to the Chairman and ask if he recalled a day several years ago when he’d shown kindness to a young girl” (205), the very first time she sees him at the sumo wrestling match. The fact that it took years for Sayuri to work up the courage to let the Chairman know her true feelings demonstrates the depth of her love and passion for the man, since if [she were] to have a rescuer, [she] wanted it to be the Chairman and no one else” (208). This quote also emphasizes the aspect of the damsel in distress archetype that we repeatedly see emerge in Sayuri’s character throughout the novel. However, in the end, Sayuri breaks free from this confining role (when she quits being a geisha) and the burden of her “destiny,” by becoming the Chairman’s mistress, and ultimately fulfilling her goal to self-discovery and independence.

The Tragic Hero Archetype in Hamlet

This week, the author Jackson Pierce came to speak to us about archetypes and the various molds that characters in novels may fall into. During her presentation, I was contemplating the relevance of Hamlet’s role as an archetype, and what he truly represents as an individual in the play… which could be several, considering how complex his character is and how it encompasses so many diverse notions. For one, Hamlet can be rendered as the tragic hero in the play (which is a tragedy) for numerous reasons that pertain to his characters nature and the conflicts (internal and external) that he endures throughout.

At the beginning of the play, Hamlet is presented with an extremely burdensome, exacting, and tough task that visibly takes a toll on Hamlet's sanity and reason. He must face the decision of killing his uncle in an act of vengeance for the sake of his late father. However, for the first two Acts, we see Hamlet struggle with the thought of killing Claudius, his uncle, whom he considers to be a "bloody, bawdy villain” (2.2.607). Despite the fact that Hamlet undoubtedly possesses the profound ambition and motive to carry out this grueling responsibility, he cannot get past his encumbering thoughts and reasoning. It is Hamlet’s vast intelligence and hesitance that gets the best of him, and prevents his powerful emotions from overriding his conscience. Thus, in Hamlet’s character, we can clearly detect a hint of uncertainty and doubt which deeply troubles Hamlet as he becomes torn between his righteous fate and his moral obligation to his uncle.

Like a typical tragic hero, he embarks on a quest to avenge his father’s death, as he must make a tough decision that holds no insight for what the future may hold. Essentially, Hamlet’s fate and predetermined destiny is his tragic flaw that further shapes him as a tragic hero, and what will ultimately be the premise of his death. The concept of the tragic hero archetype usually consists of a character who undergoes a “change of fortune,” which in this case, would be the late King Hamlet’s ghost imparting Hamlet with the duty of avenging his death, which completely alters Hamlet’s life from “good to bad.” Moreover, according to Aristotle, a tragic hero is one who has committed a “great wrong leading to his misfortune,” which for Hamlet, might be the secret love affair between Ophelia and him (which may have resulted in Ophelia’s pregnancy). Also, the tragic hero must also encounter some free choice, in which he must “choose one course of action over another.” In Hamlet, Hamlet’s free choice is deciding whether or not to kill Claudius. He must make the ultimate decision on his own, and what he ultimately chooses to do will determine whether or not the play will end in his demise.

So far in this play, we have come across many aspects of the tragic hero archetype that are applicable to the character of Hamlet in Shakespeare’s play. I am anxious to read the rest of the play in order to see how the tragic hero archetype manifests itself throughout the rest of the play.

Shakespeare's Hamlet: Strange Occurences in Act 2

This week in class we are reading and examining Act 2 of Hamlet, and so far it has been incredibly intense and action-packed as the plot continues to mount. Thus far, there have been recurring ideas of deception, spying, obedience, suspicion, uncertainty, and underlying financial implications. Scene 1 of this act opens with this evident notion of obscurity and espionage. The tense mood that is evoked in this scene basically emulates and foreshadows the following instances of meddling and prying that is bound to arise later on in Act 2.

In scene 1, Polonius orders Reynaldo to spy on Laertes, which once again puts emphasis on the concept of subservience and fulfilling one’s duty (especially on Reynaldo’s part), while Polonius’s actions also exemplify the intrusive and meddlesome aspect of the scene. Additionally, in this first scene, there are also questions regarding honor and trust, as Polonius encourages Reynaldo to be devious in order to “expose” the truth about Laertes’ acquaintances. This actually reveals Polonius as a pitiful and cowardly character, since he is willing to go to extreme and desperate lengths in order to pry into his son’s life instead of just confronting his son face-to-face like a real man.

Moreover, Polonius’s manner towards his daughter Ophelia is also very strange and unloving. However, this is briefly contradicted when Polonius apologizes to Ophelia if he could have potentially provoking Hamlet’s erratic and peculiar behavior and madness when he says “I am sorry that with better heed and judgment I had not coted him” (2.1.124-125). In general though, Polonius kind of treats his daughter like a plaything, especially when he says “I’ll loose my daughter to him” (2.2.176) in scene 2, as if she is an animal to be unleashed or some inanimate object. Perhaps this is another indication of the controversy between what “seems” and what “is.” Is Polonius truly sorry for causing Hamlet’s madness, or does he want to seem sorry? As of now, Polonius’s obscure motives remain somewhat unclear.

On another note, Claudius and the Queen also exhibit signs of deceit and dishonesty when they ask Guildenstern and Rosencrantz to keep an eye on Hamlet because they are “concerned” for him. Hamlet’s bizarre and inexplicable behavior has made the Queen and Claudius worried for Hamlet’s well-being, or so it seems. In truth, I believe the Queen and Claudius are hiding a dark secret, like maybe some secret past love affair that they are bothered Hamlet might discover. I think they are onto Hamlet, and they want to keep him under surveillance in order to ensure that he doesn’t do anything to harm their reputation. After all, the queen has no doubt that Hamlet’s troubles have been triggered by “his father’s death and [their] o’erhasty marriage” (2.2.60), which we know as the audience isn’t completely true. I believe Hamlet’s actual train of thought and motives for acting mad and unusual will be revealed later on, but for now, I suspect that Hamlet is fully aware of his parents’s plans and that he intends on continuing this odd act until he’s ready to avenge his father’s death.

Memoirs of a Geisha by Arthur Golden

The book I'm currently reading as my book outside of class is Memoirs of a Geisha by Arthur Golden. I immediately fell in love with the book only after reading a few sentences, thus, the statement that Golden is capable of writing a captivating and riveting novel is a huge understatement. The story takes place in the late 1920s to early 1930s Japan, where a young girl Chiyo, from the small village of Yoroido, endures many difficult challenges when she is forcibly taken to Kyoto to become a geisha at the age of nine. Golden’s style is so unique and his writing truly honors Japanese tradition which he embodies so vividly.

The novel is told in Chiyo’s point of view, as she tells the story of how she came to be a geisha, which is truly a saddening story as I can almost feel Chiyo’s pain through her thoughts and words. Chiyo’s character is so pleasant and considerate, and in my opinion, she is the epitome of a good-natured person in every sense of the word. Her story is so heartbreaking, yet touching at the same time because her audacity and courage to overcome obstacles is very admirable.

In the beginning, the way in which Chiyo describes the world around her is indicative of her youthful innocence and naiveté. Her point of view reflects that of an unassuming child who has an immense curiosity for the world and everything in it. For example, Golden elaborates Chiyo’s inquisitive character when she observes Mr. Tanaka in great detail and notes how the “creases in his brow [were] like ruts in the bark of a tree” and how he “seemed to [her] the wisest and most knowledgeable man on earth” (Golden 20), which serves to elaborate her childish innocence. Chiyo is such an imaginative child too, as she constantly concocts fantasies in her head of what she believes are people’s intentions and of her future.

Moreover, Golden’s vivid descriptions take the novel to a whole other level, especially because each literary device is explicitly true to Japanese culture and principles. Golden specifically reveals Chiyo’s depth of knowledge and understanding of the world through her language and descriptions of what she feels or thinks. For instance, when she feels tired and completely worn out, she says that she “felt as sore as a rock must feel when the waterfall has pounded on it all day long” (Golden 34), perfectly capturing the sensation of fatigue. Additionally, when Chiyo encounters Hatsumomo for the first time, she is amazed and stunned by her beauty and the extravagance of her kimono, which “was water blue, with swirling lines in ivory” and of her face, which is described like a painting with a “rich white, like the wall of a cloud when lit by the sun” (Golden 36-37). Golden’s writing is incredibly creative and flawless, in my opinion, because it is difficult to tell a story in the point of view of a girl searching to find her way in life, much less when it is a story about a foreign culture. Overall, I think the Golden is a commendable and brilliant writer, and from what I have read thus far, Memoirs of a Geisha is a great read and a fantastic novel.