Post 7

Netflix Recommendations from Macbeth:

Breaking Bad
Walter White, a chemistry teacher, partners with a former student to begin producing and selling crystal meth to pay for his cancer medical expenses and provide for his family in the future. Macbeth loves this show and the main character because he feeds off the power that Walter White gains as rises higher in rank in the drug organization. It comforts him throughout the show that White also was willing to kill to better his own situation.
Though once Macbeth reached the end of the series, it frightened him that White lost everything he had worked so hard for.

The Lovely Bones
Although most people would not find comfort in this violent story of a girl who was murdered and raped by her neighbor, Macbeth is relieved with the family members of the young girl who feel as if they can still see and hear her, even after her death. He knows that his seeing Banquo was real, and was previously worried that he was crazy. But because of this film, he now knows that many other people can see ghosts. Though, the movie also made him uneasy when he discovered that Susie Salmon, the murdered teen, could not move on to heaven before her death was avenged with her family finding peace. Macbeth feared that Banquo will want his death avenged in order for him to go away and not be able to see him again. 

How to Get Away with Murder
A defense attorney and a small group of her students, work together on cases that involve questionable tactics in order to get the criminal acquitted. By the end of the series they become bound together through covering up a murder. Macbeth gained a lot of information from this show on how to get away with the murders he committed, like King Duncan and Banquo. He did this through the show's explanation of how a person can stretch the truth. Macbeth utilizes this skill often with double speak, equivocations, and paradoxes. Macbeth also connects with the main character and how she rationalizes her actions because they protect herself.

American Horror Story
Macbeth is very intrigued by American Horror Story, he especially enjoys Season 1: Murder House and Season 3:  Coven. With the ghostly apparitions only seen by those living in the house in Season 1 and all the issues caused by witches using their various powers, he can definitively relate with the characters.  When no one else saw the apparitions you claim you saw, not even your own wife, it can get to your head, but Macbeth is justified in Season 1, where there is an entire family who sees ghosts as living people. He can truly connect with the theme of appearance versus reality throughout the season. Are the ghosts really there? During the second season, the wickedness of some witches are revealed, as they will do anything to get what they want. He learns more about their powers, which he enjoyed because they intrigue him so much in how they can predict the future, but he wonders if they are using their powers to control him.

Reign (but just Season 2, Episode 3, the scene of the coronation) 
The series Reign depicts the journey of that of Mary Queen of Scots and her rise to power. In one's rise to power there is bound to be struggles which are painful for the protagonist, though, in that one moment where the coronation is occurring and power has been obtained, there is no drama. Though the rest of the series makes him question whether it is really Lady Macbeth that is making his decisions....hmmmmm.

Post 6

Do you believe events in your life have been guided by fate or chance? Why or why not? Based on the text, what do you think Shakespeare's attitude was towards fate? Does Macbeth have any choice in his actions or was everything predetermined? Use examples from the text as your support.

Fate vs. Chance - It's a struggle that is shown countless times throughout Shakespeare's work, you'd think we would have gotten over it by now. But no, it is still a question that will forever loom over human existence.

If you want my opinion, which I'm sure you don't, I believe the events in my life have been guided by chance, or for better words, free will. For there to be one set pathway that the Earth will ever witness seems completely unrealistic to me. Who would have the power to choose the fate of all things that have existed, are existing, and will ever exist? If there is a God, why would he even care so much as to choose every single happening ever. That is an insane, infinite, amount of things. If I were God, I wouldn't bother. But let's be honest, God would probably want to utilize his omnipresence a little, so again, if God does exist, nothing is stopping him from performing some of his all-powerful magic and putting some events' fate into his own hands. Not all events are guided by fate, but it is possible that a few happenings are set in stone.

It is very apparent that Shakespeare was enthralled with the idea of fate. But whether he believes in in it, is in question. In fact, I propose that Macbeth was making fun of people that think their lives are placed in fate's hands.

From the beginning of the play Shakespeare uses supernatural characters, such as the three witches, to inform Macbeth of his "predetermined" future. Macbeth questions the witches' prediction, he exclaims that "The Thane of Cawdor lives. Why do you dress me in borrowed robes?" (Act I, Scene III). But I believe that this experience only caused Macbeth to have the possibilities of being King set in his mind, showing the dominance and influence of supernatural powers, something I believe Shakespeare did believe in. However, the supernatural characters may actually serve as a physical symbol for people's deepest darkest desires and the evil within all men. Macbeth claims "If chance will have me as King, why chance may crown me without my stir," but as the thoughts race through his mind, and the possibility that this could be fate wreaks havoc in his brain, he takes action to ensure the prophecy is fulfilled (Act I, Scene III).

King Duncan had to die. Macbeth made the choice to kill, all in the name of the prophecy. Fate did not make King Duncan die, it was Macbeth's own selfish ambition that killed Duncan. The killing of King Duncan and Banquo, as well as the attempted murder of Fleance, was all facilitated by the supernatural, or possibly the selfish thoughts of Macbeth taking physical shape. Macbeth had control over his actions, this I am sure of, but was it influenced by the supernatural or Macbeth's inner evil?

"Strange things I have in head, that will to hand, which must be acted ere they may be scanned." (Act III, Scene IV)

I'm leaning toward inner evil. Macbeth has schemes in his head that he is planning to put into action. He has to do these things for his goal to be met, and him to be ensured his kingship, he just has to do them before he has the chance to think about them. He knows he will regret following through on his selfish wishes, but they are stronger than him.

Post 5

Artist:  Unknown, most likely made by someone of or belonging to the church since it represents Catholicism positively
Title:  Double-Sided Ivory Liturgical Comb with Scenes of Henry II and Thomas Becket
Date:  1200–1210
Medium:  Ivory
Size:  3 3/8 x 3 3/8 x 1/2 in. (8.6 x 8.6 x 1.2 cm)

This liturgical comb was most likely made in England, possibly in Canterbury during the Middle Ages of the early 1200s. The context surrounding this would be the power struggle between the Catholic church and the reign of Henry II. Though, the church still remained with a lot of power. A liturgical comb like this would be used before a Mass on the priest's hair to prepare him for the service.

According to the source, this is the only comb known that is decorated with scenes from the life and martyrdom of Saint Thomas Becket. On one side is a scene of Henry II informing Becket that he will become the archbishop of Canterbury. On the other sides of this center depictions are scenes of the boat that will take Thomas Becket on his final mission to England and a church facade, which is most likely alluding to Canterbury Cathedral, the church in which Becket was in charge of. All these images praise the Catholic church and the work Becket has done for the religion.


The opposite side of the comb shows the martyrdom and murder of Thomas Becket in Canterbury Cathedral on December 29, 1170. The images in the half-circles on the side of this main image contain an angel at the altar of martyrdom and also a devil holding a book. This shows that good is correlated with the Church and with Becket since it shows nice floral depictions of him and the church, but evil, dark connotation with the king, Henry II and his knights.

I believe the meaning of this piece is to depict the power and positive aspects of the Catholic church, while reinforcing negative views on the kingship of Henry II. The calm, serene setting of Thomas Becket receiving news of his role as archbishop, as well as his church and boat, led me to believe that the creator of this comb appreciated the church and Becket's role in it, as they want the priest using the comb to think about this during his time as a priest. I think it also serves the purpose in not approving of the king's power during this time, especially over the church. This is particularly shown by the use of the devil being shown next to the scene of the king's knights killing Thomas Becket. Only well-known, highly respected priest and member of the church would deserve his life to be delicately carved out in ivory for other church members to see.

The creator of this liturgical comb, carefully carved his scenes into expensive ivory. The images are set up as to have the all-important, Thomas Becket, depicted in the largest, center image and supporting images on either side. The artist honored key features of Gothic English art around 1200 by including the classic naturalism of the figures and floral ornament decorating the piece. Also, the carver made sure to carve deeply behind the figures of the important people depicted, especially Thomas Becket. This created shadows behind them, that makes them stand out more and highlights their importance. This may also show the holiness of Becket since his figure stands out more than other features depicted on the comb. Also, the ivory is very polished so that it appears and feels smooth. This attention to detail, shows the dedication to the church and the religion. Since this comb would be used by a priest, it also shows the respect for this position. 

To also show the meaning and importance of this piece, it is currently in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. This liturgical comb and work of art conveys that during this time period and in this location, church leaders commonly competed for power with the king. It also shows insight behind the wealth within the church. The intricacy and material of the liturgical comb shows that the church can afford such niceties, especially if they honor religious figures. The comb signifies the martyrdom of Thomas Becket, which would have been an important symbol for Catholics during the 14th century. It showed them to stay loyal to the church and to not put the king above the church. In today's society, it would have similar meaning and importance for Christians. It signifies the adversity those of their religion have faced to have a relationship with God, as well as the growth the Christian churches have experienced.

Post 4

“And, ma’am,” he continued, “the laundress tells me some of the girls have two clean tuckers in the week: it is too much; the rules limit them to one.” 

“Julia Severn, ma’am! And why has she, or any other, curled hair? Why, in defiance of every precept and principle of this house, does she conform to the world so openly—here in an evangelical, charitable establishment—as to wear her hair one mass of curls?” 

“Naturally! Yes, but we are not to conform to nature; I wish these girls to be the children of Grace: and why that abundance? I have again and again intimated that I desire the hair to be arranged closely, modestly, plainly. Miss Temple, that girl’s hair must be cut off entirely; I will send a barber to-morrow.”

“(T)hree other visitors, ladies, now entered the room. They ought to have come a little sooner to have heard his lecture on dress, for they were splendidly attired in velvet, silk, and furs. The two younger of the trio (fine girls of sixteen and seventeen) had grey beaver hats, then in fashion, shaded with ostrich plumes, and from under the brim of this graceful head-dress fell a profusion of light tresses, elaborately curled; the elder lady was enveloped in a costly velvet shawl, trimmed with ermine, and she wore a false front of French curls.”

(Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë)

Analyze the author’s use of irony in describing Mr. Brocklehurst’s family in the second passage. How does the author contrast this description with Mr. Brocklehurst’s lecture to Miss Temple to provide social commentary on perceptions of class during this time?

This passage is notably ironic because prior to when Mr. Brocklehurst's family entered the church, he is lecturing Miss Temple on how people should dress not only in church, but in life as to show one's devotion to God. He notes that the young girls do not need large meals or more than one clean tucker a week. He thinks they much be dressed modestly as to not show gluttony and so they can focus on what is important:  God. However, the irony lies in the fact that his own family does not follow this crucial sentiment. As his children were adorned in "velvet, silk, and furs." Mr. Brocklehurst claims that he is dedicated to his religion and praises God, and to do this one must not live in abundance. But the author shows that he follow his own beliefs as she describes his family as being attired in the fanciest of expensive clothing, which leads the audience to believe that this must be how they live all the time.

This contrast between the description of Mr. Brocklehurst's family and his lecture of the dress code to Miss Temple provides a social commentary of the perceptions of class during this time. From Mr. Brocklehurst's hypocritical expectations of a Christian follower, it is reflected that he is attempting to note that the higher class holds more importance over the lower class since it is apparent that he does not necessarily hold his family at the same standards as he does with the orphanage children. It is possible that he almost expects God to value him more because of the social standing he has. Brontë is showing that she believes that the higher class is privileged, but this doesn't mean that they are automatically closer to God. The higher class may use religion to convince themselves that they are good people, even though they don't necessarily follow the word of God how they expect others to.

Based on this passage, I believe that Brontë may also be commenting on the power that the higher classes display over the lower class. She wants the audience to understand how selfish the higher class with all the excess they have, while at the same time the lower class has so little. But through this passage, it shows that the higher class prefers that they lower class stays at the bottom with little possessions, as Mr. Brocklehurst tells Miss Temple that "the rules [of which he made] limit [the orphans]" to one" tucker each. The upper class is portrayed as unkind and arrogant while the lower class is shown as being victims being mistreated by the higher class who get to dictate how they live their lives. It can be assumed that Brontë acknowledged the power differences between the two classes and felt that the upper class utilized their position in organizations such as businesses and the Christian church to exert their power over the poor social groups.

Post 3

Lust and gluttony, the two deadly sins that Pope Gregory categorizes as the least deadly of the seven. But that doesn't stop the media from filling their ads and commercials with these immoralities, maybe it is because they are truly irresistible to the human psyche.

https://www.coloribus.com/adsarchive/prints-outdoor/harvey-nichols-gluttony-7153905/

This photograph is for the Harvey Nichols Company, taken by Tim-Bret Day with the Tribal London agency. It was released in March of 2005 with the place of publication being the United Kingdom.

At first sight, I see a red carpeted room with white walls, filled with tables with crisp white table cloths and sleek white chairs. Though the tables are piled with various fruit, most of them red, like strawberries, cranberries, and watermelon. There are beautiful women all throughout the shot, dressed in elegant gowns. There is one woman at the foreground looking seductively at the camera, while the others seem to not notice the camera and are engaged in their own activities like pouring champagne on another woman, eating fruit, sneaking marshmallows under the table, or sipping champagne. These women are covered in the mess of the excess of fruit, but still are pristine looking, their hair perfectly in line, their makeup without any smudges. In the bottom right corner of the ad, an emblem of the company, Harvey Nichols, a chain dedicated to the luxury lifestyle, specializing in designer fashion, beauty, food, and wine; all things shown throughout the ad.

Two colors that stand out in this photograph are white and red. The white of the tables and chairs may represent the perfection of the lavish lifestyle that the people shown in the ad lead, this is a contrast from the red in the carpet, fruit, and dresses. While white shows purity and cleanliness, red shows emotionally intensity, it can represent power, strength, energy, lust, and love. With the red aspects of the picture disrupting the white it is showing that the lavish lifestyle is one that praises indulgence over innocence and chastity. Buying products from this company will make people jealous of your extravagant life. The extreme excess of food, and wastefulness of the champagne shows gluttony and makes it appealing to the audience since it represents wealth and a life without struggle. It may also allude to art of the renaissance period where there are dozens of painting of women lying on a sofa, draped in red cloth, being fanned and fed grapes. This period is one that is enthusiastic toward the finer things in life, things appreciated by the higher classes. Also, by placing a woman at the foreground, staring straight into the camera, and thus looking into the eyes of the intended audience, she becomes sexually explicit, showing the desire and craving for eroticism. Finally, by not having the company's symbol by the main focus of the ad, it is showing that this company is far too fancy to have to scream their name in order to get business. They are far too refined to have to beg for customers, making their products for desirable for the wealthy viewer. Overall, this ad persuades the audience to buy from the Harvey Nichols company which would allow them to partake in this lustful way of life where you have all your needs and wants in excessive amounts.

Harvey Nichols is a company centralized in the United Kingdom, so first off, the intended audience will geographically reside in this area. Also, since it is a company known for being focused in high-end brand name products, I believe the intended audience of this ad are the people that seek this luxurious lifestyle. These will most likely be people that are higher on the socioeconomic scale, with them belonging in social groups that often join together for extravagant parties where the atmosphere is extremely fancy and echoes praise of having excess. This is all part of "rich culture," something the intended audience of the ad would be very familiar with. The creator of the ad took the broad knowledge of what the extravagant parties are like that rich people may attend and hyperbolized the event to make it even more appealing and lavish. Looking further, because the ad only depicts gorgeous seductive women, it can be assumed that the ad is specifically trying to appeal to rich men, knowing that they would be more likely to splurge with their money at the sight of the ad. Based off these stereotypes of people that have more money and can afford things from this company, the ad utilizes the aspect of beauty and having more than enough for themselves, things that the creator of the ad assumes rich people take pride in.

Post 2

For most of my life, adolescence and on, I have tried to explore the meaning and origin of my last name:  Cavalchire. It is quite obvious that this is an extremely rare name. All my family is sure of is that it is of Italian origin. Us Cavalchire's, we're an elite group, there are not many of us, which makes it even harder to determine the history behind our name and behind the existence of our entire family. We've determined that when our family arrived at Ellis Island from Italy that our last name was written down incorrectly, which was surprisingly a common occurrence due to the amount of immigrants coming in and the existing language barrier. It is debated in our family that our true last name could Cavalcare or something of the sorts. I've always been jealous of people that have a definite last name that can easily trace back to ancestors. But either way, we are Cavalchire's and that is how we've made ourselves known here in America. The constant mispronunciations and misspellings are something we are used to and appreciate because of the times it has made us laugh, Though I can't stop my dad from joking that he is going to change our last name to Smith to avoid any future misunderstanding.

My last name strongly defines me because I align myself so closely with my Italian heritage. I love my name so deeply that I have already decided that if I am to marry, I will retain my current last name. I am also the youngest and last Cavalchire and I want to preserve the family line. I'm a Cavalchire and I always will be. It's not something I would give up without a fight. I do recognize that this feeling may change once I reach that point in my life, but for now, I find importance in maintaining my given name. Though I feel that the tradition of a woman adopting her husband's name, originated out of the overwhelming power that men felt they had over women and their intent on preserving the "more important" history of their family, I definitely think people's reasoning has veered far away from this and I do not judge anyone that chooses to adopt a new name at marriage. Today, I see a woman adopting her husband's last name as a way to preserve a joint family history that is important to them, while creating a unified group.

After reading Anna Quindlen's article, I too, notice the two me's that I show at different times. I'd hate to say that children of divorce don't face their fair share of hardships, because we for sure deal with plenty. But if we are being honest, being a child of divorce comes with perks, after the emotional turmoil part is over at least. For me, many times I feel like I have two separate families:  the one that consists of my mother and I and the one that is my father and I. Though because my mother kept my father's last name, and mine, after her divorce, sometimes we are mistaken as a generic nuclear family.

But even bigger than that, I feel that I am stuck between the me that hates the fact that I come from a divorced family because of the struggles it brings me and the me that acknowledges the benefits it brings me and the lessons it has taught me. When people learn that I come from divorced parents, their is the initial respect that they have for me because many people realize that it is difficult growing up in a split family, especially due to financial issues and the continuous fights that many of us had to suffer through. But I can also start to explain to them what having divorce parents has taught me and the good things it has brought me. With parents that were constantly fighting, even after their divorced, I now know that before a big decision, like marriage, is made, it has to be significantly thought out beforehand since I would never want it to negatively affect people like my parents' divorce has done. I also have a new found respect for couples that are effective in calmly discussing their issues and concerns instead of resorting to fighting.

In different circumstances, I notice myself either showing more of the positive side of being a child of divorce or the opposite. I can't determine whether this is a good or bad thing and if I should attempt to most often paint the full picture.

Post 1

https://tmblr.co/ZYwbvwNXQBg4

This photo, entitled "Father And Sons," was taken in The Springs, California by Wing Young Huie. He includes it in his collection, Inside The Springs, which he made in 2007. This picture depicts a family of migrant workers, a father and his two adult sons, that immigrated to the United States from Mexico. They live in a small apartment shared with multiple other workers from the wine fields, so they could afford the already low rent. They hold photographs of family members that are still residing in Mexico. On the wall is a poster of Disneyland, complete with a votive candle, creating an alter of such.

Though this is all we an see based solely on the visual. Upon interpreting further, one can assume that these men moved to the United States not necessarily out of choice, but by need. We can assume this because they left their loved ones behind. It is likely that they took the journey to California in order to find work so they could earn enough money to build a life for themselves in this new country, as well as to send money back to their family. Maybe they hope one day their family can come and join them. Based on the Disneyland poster with a candle placed in front of it, I assume that the Disney stories are something they closely relate with America. It is possible that when they were in Mexico and were thinking of what it would be like to be in America, joyous trips to Disneyland were a part of their dreams.

In The Handmaid's Tale, Margaret Atwood presents the handmaid's as others, being fundamentally different than men, and even the other female figures in the novel. Even though handmaids are a part of the society of Gilead, and arguably serve as the most important force for the government's goal. She shows this through her narration technique of having Offred's voice being the only one included directly. This explains the separation between the handmaid's and the other of the society. Atwood seeks for the audience to empathize with the handmaids, since they see how the society's conditions negatively affects them.

Wing Young Huie shows the concept of othering through the subject of diversity within the United States. Although the United States is considered a "melting pot" of nationalities, some immigrants are still consistently not accepted, Mexicans being one of them. Huie shows this through the black and white coloring of the photograph. This differentiates them from the environment, to demonstrate that they are not one with their surroundings. The last sentence of Huie's description, "They are still waiting" is an attempt to get people to show empathy for the family and others like them. Since the audience knows their wish is to go to Disneyland, a hope so innocent and pure, they can see that migrants, even though they are not inherently American, they are still so much like us. We are all connected by the things we yearn for to make us happy.

Both Atwood and Huie seek to make the audience view others as people like them, and not alienated creatures, who barely have anything in common with them. They choose to do this by showing the tough experiences that others go through and emphasizing that others just want to be accepted into the group.