What is your impression of Okonkwo so far? What is his personality like? What are his attributes and faults?

Things Fall Apart is a novel that was written on 1958 by the Nigerian author Chinua Achebe. Chinua Achebe is known for making most of his works on English, but with that special African touch. His works center mostly on African or even Nigerian plots, which makes his works more interesting because we can know about his culture, traditions and people. Starting to read this novel, the main character is Okonkwo, which is a respected warrior from the Iguedo clan and other nine villages. 

From what we have read on class(until chapter seven) Okonkwo is a respected and powerful man. Because his dad, Unoka, was an unsucccessful man which Okonkwo was ashamed and even he hated him, he decided to be different from him and start living differently than his father. In the book it says that "he everything that his father Unoka had loved". So, if his father loved gentlenes, idleness, and had fear of violence, Okonkwo was very brave and do not fear wars, and also was very aggresive. Another important aspect is that he won a battle against Amalinze "The Cat" and since then, he won respect from other villagers. He is recognized for being like a war leader, and for not having pitty among other people they fight. From this, we can say that one of his attributes is that, because he likes fighting and go to war, is pretty powerful on the village and one of the persons that the villagers have respect. So, his attributes that I have seen so far is that he is a great fighter and is one of the major factors that other villages respect Iguedo. 

However, we been seen that Okonkwo has faults due to the fear of failure and of weakness that his father once had. One of his main faults is that he is extremely aggresive. In the book says that he liked to punch people, even if he had no reason to do it. Maybe it was the pressure of not showing his real feelings and one of the ways to take them out was hitting people. Another fault that we have seen is that he is cruel with people around him. For example, Ikemefuna was like an "adopted" child from Okonkwo, because he was from another clan, but when the decree comes to tell that Ikemefuna must die, Okonkwo lies to him and told him that he was going home. At the end, Okonkwo(having the fond that he was having for Ikemefuna) kills him with his macheteWith this, we can conclude that Okonkwo may not demostrate his real feelings, and that was the reason for him to be a cruel, extremely manly and aggresive man. 


In my opinion, Things Fall Apart  is a novel that is different from others: it represents, in a clear way, how the Africans and in this case, in the Iguedo clan, live during the  colonization era. Okonkwo, is the main character of the story and Achebe demonstrates us from the beggining how this man behaves and how is his personality. Maybe it is because, even that we know most about him, he is still mysterious and maybe, can change on one moment his way of being, or maybe that way of being can lead him to his end...

What is the role of oral tradition/literature in Things Fall Apart? Use some examples and explain how they help the story-telling.

Chinua Achebe makes on Things Fall Apart a curious and special way to tell the story of Okonkwo. The role of oral tradition and the literature era are very important to Achebe for his peculiar way of writing. Achebe wants to transmit how Africans pass their oral tradition in his novel. This, by making the story be told by a third person but with a omniscient point of view,like if there where elders of a tribe.

One of the aspects that makes Achebe's novel unique  in his way of writing is the use of African words. By using this, the reader can feel and relate to the oral traditions of Africa. One example is in chapter nine, where Ezinma has fever or iba, and Okonkwo "took his machete and went into the bush to collect the leaves and grasses and barks of trees that went into making the medicine for iba". This kind of parts are the ones that makes the reader go inside the story, because of the context that the novel gives. Another example where it demonstrates the use of African words: " Outside the obi Okagbue and Okonkwo where digging the pitto find where Enzinma has buried ver iyi-uwa". Achebe wants to transmit to his readers the sensation of being part of the tribe, to feel what they think and feel.

Another important aspect about Things Fall Apart is that it gives the context of the 19th Century, of the colonization of Africa. Achebe wants to transmit the African point of view through the storytelling. For example, since the start of the novel, the narrator is  telling how Okonkwo became important on the  village. It is an omniscient narrator and I think it relates to what oral tradition is about, because he is not objective in some parts of the novel but he knows what he wants to transmit to the reader, like an elder that wants their villagers to feel their stories. It is clear that the post-colonialism literature is present on this book, even that he wrote it on 1958.

Things Fall Apart is a novel that, in my opinion, is the antithesis of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness for many reasons, and one of them is the African oral tradition that is present through all the novel. His way of writing, even that is in English, transmits his African way of telling stories and, it is clear that he wants to proof that Africans tell stories way different than Europeans or Americans.

Compare and contrast Poe and Conrad (in so far as we have read Conrad).

 During this new semester, we have seen in class two different authors from different Eras: Edgar Allan Poe and Joseph Conrad. Edgar Allan Poe is well known for his short stories, but also for introducing the British horror stories and detective stories to American literature. On the other hand, Joseph Conrad was a person that lived on three different countries, and is known for his novel Heart of Darkness. Even that Conrad and Poe are different on their writing style, they share some themes and motifs on their respective works.

Edgar Allan Poe emphasizes his stories on revenge and baseness, but Conrad highlights themes like slavery and the idea of what is civilized and not. Edgar Allan Poe, in his short stories makes the principal character to revenge against another character in order to reestablish a “natural order”. On ¨Hop Frog¨, we see that the main character wants to kill the dumb king for making him humiliations. Joseph Conrad makes the main character on Heart of Darkness to start telling a story on how he went to Congo and to tell about slavery and the civilization there. When Marlow was telling how he became Captain, he recalls a story from Captain Fresleven, who was in charge of the Africans but due to a lack of patience, he hurts the chief from the African Village and his son, trying to save his father, kills the Captain. Comparing them, the two of this situations (Poe’s stories and Conrad’s novel) have murder, but one is really intentioned and the other it was just for pure defense of individuals. So, maybe there are alike on some themes, but they focus on different perspectives.

Another point about Conrad and Poe is the way they represent this idea of darkness in their works. Edgar Allan Poe represents darkness as something evil, madness, and it can be related in many of his stories with murder. For example, on “The Pit and the Pendulum”, the main character is on a type of prison where sometimes is very dark, representing that way of being nearly dying and suffering. On the other hand, Conrad has this idea of darkness as the unknown, mystery and also we can say fear about something or somewhere. The clear example is the title of the book Heart of Darkness, where later the main character will have fear saying that being inside the jungle will be like being on a “heart of darkness”. Even that they expose different kinds of darkness, the two of them can represent opposite sides of it: civilized versus the uncivilized, good versus bad, instincts versus reason; also both play an important part of their works.

Joseph Conrad and Edgar Allan Poe works can seem so far different, but on some aspects they are alike. Even that some themes are quite different, we can relate them and see that they both expose detailed situations and make the readers to let out their instincts or their sensitive part of them. Also, both of them center on same ideas or motifs, but they represent them on different ways. As from what we have read in class, we can conclude that not only because they were from different Eras or from different countries, does not mean that some authors can have similarities. Because as humans, we might not exactly be like others, but we share something in common: that we keep learning to understand each other.  

Why does Poe choose these themes and motifs?

“Words have no power to impress the mind without the exquisite horror of their reality”. This quote was from the poet and a short story writer Edgar Allan Poe. He is recognized for introducing the British horror story, the Gothic genre, to American literature from the nineteenth-century. For knowing the perceptions of this author, as a reader you have to not only read because of loving horror stories, but for comprehending that for Poe, humanity is more that we see. Edgar Allan Poe chooses certain themes and motifs for making the reader understand his perspective of the real human nature.

The themes that Poe puts on his stories was on the purpose of understanding the lack of self-control of the human being. One of them is the madness that their characters show from wanting revenge from another character, in order to feel sane. For example, on “Hop Frog” the main character wants to kill the king and the other 7 men because of the madness that he had inside. By killing them, he revenges from other humiliations that they make to him and Trippetta. Another theme that Poe uses constantly on his short stories is baseness. On his short stories, he makes their characters to drive crazy and to make what their uncivilized part tells them to do: to commit murder, or to become insane. A based character of Edgar Allan Poe has no regard for others, and he or she only have interest on their own. Madness, revenge and baseness are themes that Poe uses frequently to show that on the right moment and time, we do not have control over ourselves and we have to do what our passions want us to do.

Moreover the themes that he uses, one important essence of his stories are the multiple and singular motifs that makes his works so unique. Death is one of the most important motifs of their stories. His horror stories are a clear example of this motif: in most of his stories, one of the characters ends dead because another character kills him or her due to his insanity. Besides most of his horror stories, Poe also included these motif on their detective stories, in order to make the reader understand that death(wanting it or not) is part of the life cycle and that one day, every one of us is going to reach that point, the end. Another motif of Poe’s stories are animals. On some of his stories, like “The Murders in the Rue Morgue”, he introduces real animals as murderers, like the ourang-outang that killed the two women. But, on most of his stories, he makes the humans comport like real animals, and that is some interesting aspect that the reader notice. By these motifs, the people that read his stories comprehend the real message of what he is trying to transmit.

Poe, by the use of some specific themes and motifs on his short stories, achieves catching the reader and making him or her comprehend that human nature is something more complex that they imagine. Humans are not only logical and reasonable, we still have flaws and commit mistakes, but now a days (and also when Edgar Allan Poe lived) society want people to behave a certain way, forgetting that we still are animals and as them, we have passions that can lead to our real interests and desires. But fortunately, by reading his short stories, we can be conscious that on some point of our lives, on the right moment and time, we can really go unreasonable and mad and we will not have control of that. As Neal Shusterman says “One thing you learn when you’ve lived as long as I have-people aren’t all good, and people aren’t all bad. We move in and out of darkness and light all of our lives.” In other words, everyone is searching their own happiness and safety regardless of another people's feelings; because eventually, everyone must live as they want to live his or her journey in life.

What have you liked/disliked so far about Margaret Atwood? Why? Explain what you have learned about post-modernism. How does postmodernism relate to Margaret Atwood?

On this past week, we had been reading some examples of post-modernism short stories that can make us, as class, have a better idea of the post-modern theory with the basic elements. Also on this past week, we read some of Margaret Atwood's work, based on some anecdotes and essays that she wrote; Margaret Atwood is a Canadian poet, novelist and essayist. 

We read her "Letter to America", which impressed me a lot because now-a-days few people really express what they feel about some country like the U.S.. Although Atwood is Canadian, she wrote this to point out how America has been changing through the years due to actions made by other nations. I think that one of the things that I like of Atwood is the way she is sincere in her works, she is not afraid to be "rebel" by writing all that she feels or thinks is right. This letter in specific describes this perfectly, because like U.S., our society has changed so much, and we do not know how they are in reality. Also, we read her "Tour-de-farce", which I really like because she tells the story the way she would tell it to a friend or a known person; she uses literary devices related to one literary theory named post-modernism like pastiche, self-awareness, deconstruction, subversion, etc. On the other hand, something that I do not like about the Canadian writer is the use of some words that I do not understand  (maybe, are from Canada) and that leads me to stop the writing and look up for the word(thing that it is not bad, but like stops me from the fluidity of my reading. 

Reading Margaret Atwood means that, in part, we are also learning about post-modernism. The post-modernism theory we have been seeing it about two weeks ago, but our teacher makes us read some examples and puts us some videos for our better understanding. I have learned that post-modernism is to go out of the usual, to be "rebel" about all the past theories (like modernism) and put something different on it or re-order it . Some basic elements of the post-modernism theory are self-awareness, which are: subversion, that is reacting against a certain system or being rebel; deconstruction is having certain stuff or knowledge and tear it apart to built new knowledge or stuff; self-awareness is, for example, that characters know are characters; intertextuality is referencing many texts or authors to a literary work and finally pastiche is bringing different elements from different things and stories. Our teacher tells us that post-modernism is not only on literature, is on art, on movies, on architecture and also on our daily life, when we change something of make something out of different things. I think that I am liking this post-modern theory, is different from the others and really transmits something to the readers. 

Relating Margaret Atwood with post-modernism, I think that this Canadian writer has elements of post-modernism in her works. I discover that in the works that we saw this week, she uses a lot of the literary device subversion, which make her stay out of the usual and that is (to my opinion) something characteristic in her and what attracts the reader. Also, being post-modern is to be different by making something that is against the system and Atwood expresses her ideals, dreams, anecdotes, and feelings with the help of this theory. I am really liking post-modernism, and personally, I think that for being successful in life you have to be like post-modernism... different from the rest! 

Pd. I know is in Spanish, but you cannot deny it is very post-modern! :D

More poems of John Donne. Opinion and identification of literary devices.

On the past weeks, we have being seeing more poems of John Donne that were pretty interesting for us to analyze them and find out that Donne was not always thinking about sexual stuff or was always super religious. First of all, Donne also has his nice and cute part, talking about themes of love and remaining in love. He talks on some of his poems about being in love, what love means for him and her beloved one and together, they can reach spirituality.

 Also, we found out that Donne defends in one of his poems, the love that he shares with her beloved one. As we saw on the presentations and the analysis of Donne's poems, he was, at the beginning of his long life, making poems about young and innocent love and the power that it has.In my opinion, now I have a different perspective of John Donne because I thought he was a very sexual man and on the other hand, that he also talked about religious things that in his time were important for him and the people of London. Some of the literary devices that I found on his poems were enjambments,cesuras, anaforas, epiforas,and most of the time he uses conceits and his wit for making paradoxes and antithesis. 

What aspects of "Satire III" didyou find appealing, interesting if any? How? Why? What did you learn about John Donne the man, not the poet, as we studied "Satire III?" Comment on any aspect you wish about your experience with "Satire III."

In this past weeks we have being seeing "Satire III" by John Donne, which is one of the longest poems I have ever seen and analyzed in my life. Even that it was long, it was pretty interesting the theme that he was mentioning: seeking the truth. Some things that I found interesting in the poem was that he relates his poem with many personalities of different religions and takes the reader to have and idea about the religion he is talking. Another aspect that I found interesting in the poem was all the enjambents that he puts and for analyzing, it is kind of tricky because enjambents,can change the meaning of all the verse.

As reading and analyzing "Satire III", we discovered that John Donne was a frustrated man that, maybe, did not feel like having a real religion or did not was sure about the religion he was following. Because, when he was a child and as a teenager, he was catholic but as time went by, he changed his religion to the Anglican. I think that John Donne did not found the real truth in the two religions or in another religion that he would consider, because in "Satire III" he expressed that frustration of not finding the true religion or the truth that can take us to heaven or with God. 

I believe that, like John Donne, all of us pass to that point in our lives when we are in search of the truth, or the "real" religion that can make us fulfilled and happy. "Satire III", is a poem that has a lot of rhetoric figures that make the poem have double meanings, thing that is characteristic of John Donne. This poem make me reflect about life, about the real truth because although I do not doubt about my religion like John Donne, maybe I have not found the real truth that can make me real happy for believing in God completely. Even if there are two different eras, I think that his poem is the expression of many man that seek the truth about life and religion. 

What have you discovered about John Donne as we have studied "Holy Sonnet VI" and "The Flea" in the last two weeks? How is Donne different from other poets you have come across? How is he similar? What do you think of his poetry o far? Why?

In the last two weeks, we have been seeing some poems of the English author John Donne.Our teacher in class told us about Donne's life before giving us examples of some of his most famous poems. First of all, John Donne was born during the Xvi and Xvii centuries, and he is recognized now-a-days for being part of the metaphysical poets. Besides being a poet, he was a lawyer and a minister in the Church of England. Despite his work on the English Church on his early years he had the Roman Catholic religion, but he changed it later and become an Anglican. John Donne is well-known for his variety of poems and the way he wrote them. 

So after seeing a little bit of his life, we start to see some of his poems. The first poem of Donne that we saw in class was "The Flea". Honestly, before I read it I thought that it was going to be funny or that it was going to be an irrational poem talking about an insect on nature. But, when we start reading it, I realized that the theme was more about sexuality and love than a simple flea. He introduced the flea as a excuse and a way of persuasion for a man to have sexual relationships with a woman. It is a poem that gives a sexual message to a woman but with hints; John Donne gives double meanings, thing that makes us, at first, go nuts with this poem. Later on the teacher gave us another poem, but these one was not about sex and love. The name of this poem was "Holy Sonnet VI" and we found out so far that another theme that John Donne use on this poems is death. Mainly on "Holy Sonnet VI", he is making an allusion to death, telling it that he is not afraid of it because is like sleeping or resting and that actions makes us feel comfortable, happy and relaxed. We do not have to worry about death, nor fear of it, because (for Donne) is like sleeping. Obviously for finding out the meaning of the poem we had to find out, as a group, the words we do not understand and the semantic fields to know what he was talking about. Even if this poems we have seen like "The Flea" and "Holy Sonnet VI" are short, we found out that we can analyze a lot of things like rhetoric figures, double meanings, themes, etc. 

Comparing Donne to other poets I have known by reading his or her poems, I think John Donne has something the poets that I had read do not have: the use of conceits on his poems. As we know, John Donne was a metaphysical poet which used wit to give his poems certain difference among others and, because he was an scholar, he used to apply that knowledge that he had on his poems in order to make them sound and feel different and with a different meaning.  He used to put sophisticated language and to had the use of paradoxes and ironies. Also, he is known for his sarcasm in some of his poems(specifically the ones about religion). Some similarities that Donne has to the poets that I know is that he uses metaphors to express his ideas, he writes sonnets(like some poets I known like Mario Benedetti, Pablo Neruda, Sor Juana, etc) and has as main themes religion, death, love and sexuality. 

 To my point of view, now I think that his poetry is different of other contemporary authors and the way he writes,obviously, has many antique English words like thou, thee, etc. I like the way he uses double meanings and we have, as students of English Literature, more things to analyze comparing him to other poets that may be more literal. His poems makes me think that he do not put only one meaning on his poems,because he likes to put double meanings on them. I am liking John Donne's poetry, because I am understanding better his way of writing and I am comprehending that he was many rethoric figures on his poems and many semantic fields. Now we are reading and analyzing "Satire III" and I hope this poem will not difficult me at all! :) 

Has our class discussion affected your view of poetry? If so, how? What is your view of poetry after our discussion?

On this last week, we started to see a new topic on our class: poetry. As in our Spanish Literature class, on our English class we have to see this topic in order to be prepared on our IBO exams. 

We started discussing in class one essay made by the writer Octavio Paz called "Poesía y Poema". By the time we were reading this essay, we were talking about the different aspects that we can see in poetry. I think that this discussion was a good start for us to know more about what is poetry and some of its principal components. This discussion in class change somehow my view about poetry, because before discussing in class what does poetry mean to some writers and seeing the main elements of it, I tend to relate it to something boring that do not make sense at all. I really thought that poetry was made only for things related to love and philosophy, but I think that I was wrong. The discussion in class made me realize that poetry can talk about any theme and everybody, with the main elements, can make poems.

Now I have a new view about poetry to start studying it on class, because I think now that poetry may be interesting to study on this semester. More than studying the rhymes, types of poetry and other elements(that we will see in the respective time and we would have to analyze it), I think that it will be interesting to discover the emotions, feelings and thoughts that the poets wanted to transmit in their works for the readers to understanding it. The discussion was good for us to know each other's opinions about poetry and with time, we can see how us change our view about this kind of works.

What new perspective can Semiotics bring to your perception and analysis of symbols (aural, visual, or otherwise)? Now that we have finished watching Throne of Blood, what new insights have you gained into Macbeth or in your life in general? What did I learn from watching it? Why? How?

Over the past weeks, we have been seeing what semiotics is for having one perspective about analyzing literature, as well as watching and comparing the similarities and differences between the movie "Throne of Blood" and Shakespeare's play Macbeth. 

First of all, in past classes we have been learning about what semiotics is and the benefits that we can have by comprehending this theory and the knowledge that this theory can bring us for our literary analysis for future essays. We learned that semiotics is the theory and study of signs and it is used for our communication. It can be from words, to signs we see on streets and commercials. Semiotics is everything (or every signified) that has a meaning (or a signifier).By analyzing symbols or a set of symbols on literature, we can have a more deep comprehension about a novel,a play or an essay we are reading. By knowing more about semiotics, I am understanding better why people from our culture and other cultures use certain word or group of words to communicate certain things or feelings(like the onomatopoeia's), also visually I can understand why people that are studying marketing, for example, need to use certain symbols in their products to attract more customers. Also the symbols we see on the streets we can have a new perception of seeing them and realizing that even a person that  knows other language or is a tourist that does not know anything about that language, by the signs and symbols can understand the same as the native people living on that place.

 On the other hand, the last week our teacher brought us a movie to see it on class called "Throne of Blood", that is the Japanese adaptation of Shakespeare's Macbeth. While we were watching it part by part, we were making either by a writing or by commenting it, comparisons and contrasts between these two works. In my opinion, it is not the same reading something and imagining it than watching something. I think that seeing this movie gave our class the idea of what Macbeth consisted: ambition and natural human aspirations for gaining more power against a lot of values and people we care about. Personally, I learned from either the play or the movie that, we have to follow our beliefs and values no matter what the situations are. I know there are a lot of people out there that want you to tear you apart or destroy you through assumptions, lies and suggestions about what can you achieve or what can you be if you use methods that do not match your values and ideals.

As human beings, we tend to be weak about these kind of things because sometimes we are insecure about us, but I think that we have to be strong enough to say no and stay true with ourselves, because like the witches and Lady Macbeth in Macbeth or the witch and Asaji in "Throne of Blood", people will start telling you to change to see how far you can get to change yourself, and if it is late, the consequences of that changes can be catastrophic. Reading the play and seeing the movie taught me to keep staying like I am and if I had dreams and aspirations for being something "bigger" that I am now, I have to keep working hard and believing on destiny and God to help accomplish my dreams. 

What are the similarities you have found in Kurosawa's Throne of Blood with Macbeth? How does Asaji-dono differ from Lady Macbeth? How does her approach to convince Washizu differ from Lady Macbeth's to convince her husband? What other differences can you find, other than the obvious ones(setting, character names, etc.)? Why would Kurosawa choose to emphasize certain aspects over others Shakespeare emphasizes?

On Friday, we say part of a Japanese movie, directed by Akira Kurosawa called "Throne of Blood". This movie was based on Shakespeare's play Macbeth. There are many similarities in this movie that we, as audience, can relate to Shakespeare's short tragedy. 

First of all, except for the names, the characters  in "Throne of Blood" are the same as in Macbeth. The two generals, Washizu and Miki, represent in their Japanese culture Macbeth and Banquo, the two honorable generals. As well as in Shakespeare's play, Asaji is in "Throne of Blood" Washizu's wife, alike to Lady Macbeth. The place where the story takes place in the movie is feudal Japan, very similar to the Middle Ages where Macbeth takes place. So far, the story is likely the same as in the play. The movie starts with important people and the emperor of Spider Web's Castle, that told him about two generals that are very brave and did a lot for him: Washizu and Miki(this is similar to the beginning of Shakespeare's play). Another important similarity is the witch that Washizu and Miki meet in a forest. Different to Macbeth, there is only one witch in "Throne of Blood", but she tells the same prophecy to these characters as well as the three witches in the play told Macbeth and Banquo good future to them and their descendants, respectively. And as well as in Shakespeare's play, from the moment that they are promoted, Washizu(like Macbeth) will start aspiring to be, as the witch told him, emperor or Lord of Spider Web's Forest, even if for that he has to kill his Lord Tsuzuki.  Another important similarity is that ambition, power and magical characters are appaearing in this movie, as well as in Shakespeare's play.

There is one certain aspect of this movie that we have to analize: how Asaji-dono has convincing her husband, Washuki, for trying to kill his Lord further on the movie. Lady Macbeth and Asaji are simmilar in their characters, but they differ in certain aspects. First, their characterization. Shakespeare puts Lady Macbeth as an European ambicious woman, with sumptous jewerly. In "Throne of Blood", they characterize Asaji as the typical Japanese woman of feudal Japan, wife of a man of power in the reign(the general).Another aspect that we can see the differences between these two women is the way they convinced their husbands in their respective plots. The two of them convinced by their desire of power and to be more than a general. In Macbeth, Lady Macbeth convinced Macbeth by telling him that is a coward, that he was not a real man because of his cowardice. She also convinced him because she, compared to Macbeth, had more power to manipulate with the force of her words Macbeth's mind. In "Throne of Blood", Asaji convinced Washaki with calm and feminity. She was not dramatizing about the situation. She told her husband future bad consecuences of staying with the position that the Lord gave him. She told him that maybe his best friend, Banquo, told the Lord about the prophecy and know wanting him dead. Different to Lady Macbeth, Asaji confused Washaki about his future if he do not kill the Lord in order for them to be more powerful and being Lords of Spider Web's Forest.

Even that it is practically the same story, there are some differences, basically because of the different cultures. In Macbeth, the characters that represent the generals and the nobility seem to be refined and nice. In "Throne of Blood", the characters are more stiff. Another difference is the symbols they have in their respective kingdoms and the way they are dressed. I do not understand Japanese, but by the English translations, some dialogues differ from the one of Shakespeare. This differences can be due because I think the director of this movie, Kurosawa, wanted to "capture" the essence of Macbeth(which is the natural seek for power, the gaining or lost of honor and the consecuences that this can bring) in a Japanese context. Shakespeare in Macbeth emphasizes more about how a simple man can be convinced by ambition due to confusions about himself and his believes and letting him go by this ambition for more power. 

Here is the link for you to see a little trailer about Kurosawa's movie. So, what simmilarities and differences you can see? 

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoYzsDVyFRU

What does Shakespeare have to say about human nature? Use specific examples. What do you have to say about that? Why?

By now, most of our classmates have finished reading Macbeth's play, written by Shakespeare during the 17th century in England. Besides that it is a great play having a lot of different contrasts about their characters and has a very interesting plot ,we need to consider what does Shakespeare wanted to transmit not only on Macbeth, but in other works he had done in general about human nature. As we know, William Shakespeare is now known from creating characters that have universal human qualities, from loyal people to selfish people. The problems that Shakespeare's characters have are universal, which means that most of the people use to struggle with. Sometimes, they are successful and sometimes their lives are full of pain, suffering, and failure(Field-of-themes).

One example is the short tragedy we read in class, Macbeth. This  play has elements like ambition and evilness, things that human beings have naturally and can lead them to kill someone or changing his way of being. The main character of this play,

Macbeth, was a normal man that was motivated by ambition and by the fear of appearing weak and small in the eyes of his wife(Dalrymple), he started to commit crimes without a justification or excuse. At the beginning of the play he was considered a hero, a brave soldier that fought for good causes, but most of all he was loyal to his king Duncan, which in the play was a good king. This Shakespeare's character had nothing to complain about, there was not any excuse for committing the murders, and he even realizes it, because he was rich and was the Thane of Glamis.The only reason that Macbeth killed Duncan, Banquo,and MacDuff's family was because of ambition to be king of Scotland; he was led to evil by his ambition. Shakespeare understood this natural thing that human beings have, because we like in a society in which the search for power and better positions is unavoidable, and some people tend to reach for that power through corruption and by "embracing" the evil. In contrast to Macbeth, the two murderer that he hired to kill Banquo and Macduff's family, where evil since the beginning of their apparition, they did not have to change his way of being like Macbeth in order to reach what they wanted(money or rewards).

By this example, Shakespeare writes (and he also showed in his plays) that "the line separating good from evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either-but right through every human heart- and through all human hearts".

Also in the play, Shakespeare puts elements that human beings have when we commit crimes or things due to the evilness we have inside: we felt guilty and regretting the things we have done. In other words, we felt the consequences of our actions. One example is Lady Macbeth, that she took the decision to be evil. But in the Sleepwalking scene, she confesses everything that she and her husband, Macbeth, did. Finally, she died on the next scene. 

In my opinion, I think that Shakespeare in Macbeth and in other plays transmitted through his characters things that were similar in the 17th Century and in our time: the human nature. The way we act, the decisions we make(good or bad), and the consequences of those decisions. We, as human beings, have to live with all the good and bad things that we do everyday. Also, I think there is evilness in each and everyone of us, but we need to control it and have a balance between our good and evil sides. We do not want to be like Macbeth, that because of ambition and power, he felt guilty since the time that he killed Duncan to his death. 

References:

• Dalrymple, Theodore. <Why Shakespeare is for all Time>. Catholic Education Resource Center. Web. 26 Jan 2014. http://catholic education.org/articles/arts/al0189.html 
• <William Shakespeare>. Field-of-themes.com Web. 26 Jan 2014. http://www.field-of-themes.com/shakespeare/essays/Eshakehis.html

What are the themes revealed in Macbeth so far? What are some of the aspects of the play you have liked at this point? What haven't you liked? Why?

 The English writer William Shakespeare was one of the most important writers of English literature. It is said that he is the "father" of the modern English, because he created more than two thousand words for the English language during the English Renaissance. Besides his work as an actor and writer, nowadays he is world renowned as a playwright. One of his famous plays is a short tragedy called Macbeth, which was written approximately in 1606, during the reign of James I after the death of Elizabeth I. 

 Macbeth, tells the story about a general from Scotland named Macbeth, who is the Thane of Glamis and very brave and an honorable man. It is because of a profecy of three witches that he will be Thane of Cawdor and later,King of Scotland; but the power that he starts to desire transforms him into a murderer. One of the themes that I have identified during this week that we have been reading Macbeth, is the ambition of the principal character to be King of Scotland. At the beggining of the play, Shakespeare represent Macbeth as a good general which everyone admires and respects. It is represented with values like courage and simplicity, but when he met the witches something changed, he starts to think about the profecy and later, to plan something to kill the King Duncan. But for this act, there is another character that is very ambitious and wants more power, Lady Macbeth. There is another theme that I found during the first act: masculinity. If Lady Macbeth had not told him anything about his masculinity and that he was a coward for thinking and reflecting about killing the good king that was Duncan, he will never would have kill him. Proving that he was a man, at least to his wife, was the murder of King Duncan for them to become the King and Queen of Scotland. 

As far as we have reached in class, I am liking what is happening in the play. The way Shakespeare arrange the words for them to sound with a certain rhytm is fascinating. I know that there are many words that we do not understand sometimes, but once we search them we understand it better. Another aspect that I like is that Shakespeare puts in this play some historical aspects related to the king of that time, James I. Banquo was one of the predecesors of James,and the way that the witches told Banquo in the play that one of his descendats would be king is awesome, because Shakespeare related everything with their plays. One of the aspects(talking about the play)that I do not like so far is the character of Lady Macbeth. She is so manipulating and she wants more power than Macbeth, she is kind of sick of ambition and I hope during the rest of the play she pay the consequences for being like she is. About everything else, I think that even that it seems to be a short play, it has a lot of elements that in class we can discuss and new words that we can learn.