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.