Edna Pontellier

Chopin was one of the first to introduce into public literary discussion the issue of women’s choice of a purpose other than the role of wife and mother, showed a certain variety of female roles. In the novel ‘The Awakening’ we see a strongly developed character who isn’t afraid to break the role selected to her by society Edna Pontellier. With great interest and growing empathy readers observe the “awake” from the character, she has a “thirst for life”, the growing desire to know her self, only in order to meet the tragic result of this “awakening”. Sometimes I thought that I was reading a certain version of “Anna Karenina”. Both women are quite young, both are happily married, both are mothers and they both fell in love, and because of these feelings discovered themselves. Only, in my opinion, Tolstoy’s created a great presentation of the psychological struggle of his character, which led to a sad end. But Chopin does not leave a hint to the reader, and only on the last page, we understand what happened.

Reading this story, I understand perfectly why it had a shocking effect on readers. The morality of that time did not allow the idea of a young, married woman with children who decided to live and die for this love. Naturally, all moralizers immediately pounced on this work and considered it immoral. That explains why society treats Edna as a selfish character, but in today’s world, we have a right to choose our way. No one wants to become part of society where everything obeyed the only possible course.


Is Edna Pontellier selfish?

There is no absolute answer to this question. If we focus on her awakening to herself, she is not selfish because she constantly advances on her way to discovering her true identity that is to try to be independent of her husband and children. Besides that, I think she might be selfish to some extent.

In short, Mrs. Pontellier was not a mother-woman. The mother-women seemed to prevail that summer at Grand Isle…They were women who idolized their children, worshiped their husbands, and esteemed it a holy privilege to efface themselves as individuals and grow wings as ministering angels.

(p. 9)

Here her image has been clearly pointed out that she is not a mother-woman (normal woman), which means that what she did is out of keeping with the social standards of the time. After the experience on Grand Isle, her desire and passion for art, freedom, sexual satisfaction and so on has been awakened. So she begins to have varied fantasies and continuously chase them, but she almost never consider the consequence of her actions and needs of others. Marital infidelity thus becomes a solution to her desire not to become her husband’s possession. And she does not hesitate to leave the child to the nanny for her own needs. All these decisions  represent her way of being independent are selfish.

She began to do as she liked and to feel as she liked. She completely abandoned her Tuesdays at home, and did not return the visits of those who called upon her…so far as she was able, lending herself to any passing caprice.

(p. 67)

This passage also directly demonstrates her impractical behavior for her own desire. Likewise, abandoning housework becomes a way to become independent. Doing whatever she wants has also become her current motivation. Regardless of the feelings of others and the constraints of social moral standards, do everything you think is interesting and right. Perhaps this is literally a selfish explanation.

Anyway, in her pathway of looking for her identity, most her behaviors reveal this selfishness. Perhaps suicide is the best relief for herself, but is it not a selfish act to end her life in this way?


Is Edna Pontellier Selfish? – Eloise Richardson

Is Edna Pontellier selfish?

In Kate Chopin’s Novel, The Awakening, Edna Pontellier is beginning to discover her meaning as a person, as well as her position in the universe (pg. 15). The way women are treated is more like objects rather than people. Husbands see their wives as their property. “‘you are burnt beyond recognition’ he added, looking at his wife as one looks at a valuable piece of property” (pg. 2). From Enda’s perspective, getting out of the marraige was not selfish. She was doing what she had to for herself as she realized her worth.

Her actions also affects how Mr. Pontellier raises his children. At the beginning of the novel, Mr Pontellier says it is the mothers job to take care of their kids (pg. 6). This was after he had already been gone all night leaving Mrs. Pontellier to feed the kids and get them to bed. Without her being there, will force him to take more responsibility.

The only part about Mrs. Pontellier that is selfish, is the way she does things. She was having an affair with Robert while still being married to her husband. There isn’t enough communication between them for a healthy loving relationship. However, the lack of communication was on both parts, Leonce often leaves to the bar and not tell her when he would be back or if he would be needing dinner upon return (pg 3). This caused extra strain on Mrs. Pontellier.

Other than the poor method choices, Mrs. Pontellier was not selfish, she is just practicing self growth.


Is Edna Pontellier Selfish?

It is arguable that Edna Pontellier is very selfish and that is the reason she does not want to oblige to her family, however that would only be a reflection of her emotional immaturity. In the time setting of the novel, there were countless obligations that were socially expected of a woman. Caring for their family, their household, and doing endless tasks for their children and husbands. However, Edna does not do any of these things. In chapter 3, Mr. Pontellier is sure that one of their sons has a fever and insists Edna should check on him. Edna insists the child has no fever as he fell asleep perfectly fine. However, after much prodding from her husband she goes to check on the child. Her initial neglect of her ailing child is a reflection of her selfishness as well as a lack of desire to be the motherly figure that is expected of her. Although she does not seem to be interested in being  mother or a wife, I do not believe that is her being selfish but simply going against social standards of women in her time. It would be overwhelming having so many obligations and not being able to socially express yourself and I believe that is why Edna is perceived as selfish.


Is Edna Pontellier Selfish?- The awakening

From reading about Edna Pontellier, there is a fine line between knowing what you want and then only caring about what you want. If I had to say, Edna is not selfish but could come off that way. When Edna begins to see the world with a different perspective, she starts to forget who she is and the things expected of her. She is just a woman who knows what she wants, I don’t think that is selfish, but powerful.


Edna Pontellier, Selfish? -Kelvin M.

A question always discussed when mentioning Kate Chopin’s iconic novel The Awakening would be whether the protagonist, Edna Pontellier, is selfish. Though there would never be a definite answer to this question, I would still try to look in the text for some evidence and reach a conclusion.

Many consider Edna selfish from her acts contradicting the common image of a mother in a patriarchal society. This argument is quite true, considering how Chopin describes her in parts of the novel:

“She was fond of her children in an uneven, impulsive way. She would sometimes gather them passionately to her heart; she would sometimes forget them.” (p. 21)

Within Edna’s character, she has chronic neglect towards her children, often unconsciously choosing to unsee them. This act is a grave indication of her selfishness, or rather, irresponsibility. And this is not only the role of a mother but a father too. As a parent, the act of unseeing their children must be criticized. At this point, Edna’s character gives an impression of ‘selfish.’ Later in the novel, an argument breaks out between Adele and Edna, one representing the ideal mother and wife in such a society, and the other an ‘awakened’ women unwilling to tend to the rules of patriarchy:

“ I would give up the unessential; I would give my money, I would give my life for my children; but I wouldn’t give myself” (p. 56)

This statement, for me, redeems Edna. This statement is ‘The Awakening’ for me. She would give anything for her child, likewise for any parent, but she would not sacrifice her individuality and rights to pursuit her own happiness. To this point, I believe Edna is irresponsible, but not selfish. Selfish, is when one sacrifices others in pursuit of personal gain and pleasure, but Edna pursuits her basic rights as an individual.

From this on, I search through the novel not for when Edna acts ‘selfish’, but for justification that her rights are oppressed by this patriarchal society. Many can be found instantly, such as how the ‘perfect husband’ Mr. Pontellier habitually views Edna not as a human being, but merely as a piece of furniture:

“You are burnt beyond recognition,” he added, looking at his wife as one looks at a valuable piece of personal property which has suffered some damage.” (p. 2)

This was Edna to Mr. Pontellier, a piece of furniture. An expensive and valuable piece of furniture, but still furniture nonetheless. The list drags on how the patriarchal society of 1899 mistreats women like Edna, forcing upon them responsibilities and roles while stripping them of their individuality. Under this circumstance, should an individual fighting for her own rights as a free human be criticized as merely ‘selfish’? I think not.


Is Edna Pontellier Selfish?

One of the biggest topics in this story is about how Edna is trying to discover herself and her new identity. In some situations I think that she could potentially just be acting different because she is trying to change and discover herself, in theses situations I don’t think that it would be considered that she is selfish. Although there are some situations where she isn’t being selfish, there are still multiple situations where she is acting selfish. One example of where Edna is being selfish is when she mentions that she would give up pretty much anything except for herself.

“I would give up the unessential; I would give my money, I would give my life for my children; but I wouldn’t give myself. I can’t make it clearer; it’s only something which I am beginning to comprehend, which is revealing itself to me.” (P. 56)

I think that this quotation shows how she is mainly worried and focused on herself. When she says that she would give up pretty much anything else it makes me think that she feels she is more important then the things she is willing to give up. This passage from the story shows how she can be selfish because he main concern and worry is about herself. Another example of when Edna acts selfish in the story is when she is refusing to go to her sisters wedding.

“Edna and her father had a warm, and almost violent dispute upon the subject of her refusal to attend her sister’s wedding” (P. 83)

This quotation also shows how Edna Pontellier can be selfish because it seems like she is so focused on what she wants, and what will make her happy that she is not even thinking about her sister. I think that if her sister was inviting her to the wedding she should have gone because it is what her sister would have wanted not what she was wanting.


Is Edna Pontellier Selfish?

In my opinion, Edna Pontellier is not selfish. At times, she does seem like she is being selfish, like when she does not take care of their children while Mr. Pontellier is out, but I think this is just her being unhappy with her situation. She does not seem to want to follow the societal norms of that time, when women stayed at home and cooked and took care of their children. However, I do not think this is her being selfish, I just think she is trying to discover who she is and how much potential she has as an individual, not just a wife. Also, I do not think her husband treats her as an individual, but as a possession. For example, on page 2, it says:

” ‘you are burnt beyond recognition’ he added, looking at his wife as one looks at a valuable piece of property”.

This shows that he did not think of Edna as an individual, which is why I do not think the way she acts is selfish, because in my opinion Mr. Pontellier does not treat her very well.


The Awakening- Is Edna Pontellier selfish?

Kate Chopin’s The awakening is all about Edna Pontellier discovering her new identity. This made her act out of the social convention, surprising the other character. This is why we ask ourselves is she really is selfish. Is it selfish to act upon what you believe?  Or, to what extent can someone do what they really want with interfering with others.  I think that this passage of the book is really interesting since we see how she acts as she believes she should.

I suppose this is what you would call unwomanly; but I have got into a habit of expressing myself. It doesn’t matter to me, and you may think me unwomanly if you like.

In this part, she makes Robert uncomfortable, which I found really interesting because at the time (in the 1800s) it was wrong or uncommon to have women behaving as Edna did. After all of this, I concluded that she in fact was somewhat selfish.

The children appeared before her like little antagonists who had overcome her; who had overpowered and sought to drag her into soul’s slavery for the rest of her days. But she knew a way to elude them.

She understood that her decision had affected his sons, but also knew that if she does what is best for them, she will be giving up on herself. I think it was okay for her to go out of the social standards, but she did so only thinking of herself. And prioritized her identity over everything else.


Edna Pontellier – Selfish?

Edna Pontellier can be perceived as selfish when she refuses to go to her sisters wedding. “Edna and her father had a warm, and almost violent dispute upon the subject of her refusal to attend her sister’s wedding” [83]. Here, Edna is only thinking about herself and not her sister who, I would imagine, would like edna attend to her wedding. If Edna was not selfish, she would attend her sisters wedding. Later, when she meets a man at the horse races, she realizes something about her marriage. “her husband seem to her now like a person whom she had married without love as an excuse” [91]. Edna realizes that she has married her husband not because of love but because of his wealth. This is selfish as Edna was only thinking of herself in the marriage not her partner as well. From these two examples we can clearly see that Edna is Selfish and thinks only of herself.


is edna selfish? Josefa Ortega

The book “The Awakening” takes place in 1899, that was the year when the feminist movement was beginning, yet it was still obliterated by the society. During that time women were expected to take care of their children and husband as if it was their only task in life, so when we read the novel it is expected to think that Edna Pontellier is being selfish for not taking care of her  children specially when she is being compared to other women who were more idealized as to what she should have been, for example in chapter IV when it is being said that her children would not go to her if they fell it says

“In short Mrs. Pontellier was not a mother-woman. The mother-woman seemed to prevail that summer at Grand Isle” (Ch. IV, P. 9).

The other mother-woman who are mentioned are described like this, 

“They were women who idolized her children, worshiped their husbands and esteemed it a holy privilege to efface themselves as individuals and grow wings as ministering angels” (Ch. IV, P. 9).

As we read the book we see that Edna is nothing like this, I think that she is not selfish, I believe she was very oppressed by her husband and society and because of that she wanted to experience something different, it is true that she was somehow rude to her family to just neglect them but for me it is understandable. The author wanted for women to feel independent Edna started to become just that in the book, in chapter XVI, Edna and Adele argue about what a mother owes to her children and Edna says

“ I would give up the unessential; I would give my money, I would give my life for my children; but I wouldn’t give myself” (Ch. XVI, P. 59)

and I believe that this can sound selfish but we don’t think as how she was being controlled for most of her life without thinking of her own wishes and what she wanted to do with her life.



Since the beginning of the book, we can clearly see how Edna’s only purpose is to fulfill her biggest ambition of pleasing no one but herself.  “I would give up the unessential; I would give my money, I would give my life for my children, but I wouldn’t give myself. I can´t make it more clear; it’s only something which I am beginning  to comprehend, which is revealing itself to me.” (XVI, 56). It is clear how she does put herself before her children, and despite it being extremely rebellious at those times, it still would be nowadays.

Closer to the end, Edna rids herself of any responsibilities and duties within her daily life and her household. “She began to do as she liked and to feel as she liked. She completely abandoned her Tuesdays at home and did not return the visits of those who called upon her. She made no ineffectual efforts to conduct her household en bonne menagerie, going and coming as it suited her fancy, and, so far as she was able, lending to any passing caprice.” (XIX, 67) Not only she became careless but she also kept treating herself whenever she had the chance to.

The fact alone that she sees her own children as a burden and blames them for her condition is not only selfish but immoral. Afterward to leave her children and husband alone.


Is Edna Pontellier selfish? -Andrea Ita

In “The Awakening” by Kate Chopin we see how the main character Edna Pontellier can seem selfish for her actions throughout the story. But is she selfish or is she just self -centered?  I think that she is not selfish, all Edna wants is independence, and she realizes that she is not maternal or the perfect wife, thanks to his husband’s actions, she comes to this realization right at the end of the book. But  Edna’s personality might be confused with her being selfish because she just wants to find herself and she has a lot to face because in one side, she starts experiencing a lot of passion for the first time in her life, but also a lot of pain, so all she really wants is to be alone. An example of this is when she says

“I would give up the unessential; I would give my money, I would give my life for my children; but I wouldn’t give myself. I can’t make it clearer; it’s only something which I am beginning to comprehend, which is revealing itself to me.” (P. 56)

I think it’s also because of how her husband sees her, his character can be perceived as a little bit misogynist because of how women were seen at that time, he expects her to be the perfect wife, but she realizes that she is not maternal at all. For example, when he says,

“if it was not a mother’s place to look after children, who’s on earth was it?” (P. 6)

I think Edna is struggling with finding her identity because she is being labeled by society on her having to be the perfect mother or the perfect wife. I think that this also has to do with the title of the book, she is not selfish she is just experiencing the awakening of her real identity and true self.


Is selfish another word for confused?

 How does Edna’s actions in the “awakening” at the start, contribute to how we foresee her. When I was reading other posts about Edna, I saw that lots of people giving the same examples, yet telling both sides of the story. In my opinion, I can not see how others find her unselfish. She focuses solely upon liberating herself from boundaries that constrain her and she achieves almost all that she desires. Her affair, treatment of others, and suicide were completely uncalled for and singleminded. Although Edna consistently acted selfishly, she was never denied support from anyone who she was acquainted with. 

Edna has two young boys who yes, she does love, yet she does not feel attached to them. Raoul, age four, and Etienne, age five, were treated in the opposite manner, “if one of the little Pontellier boys took a tumble whilst at play, he was not apt to rush crying to his mother’s arms for comfort; he would more likely pick himself up, wipe the water out of his eyes and the sand out of his mouth, and go on playing” [7]. This shows that Edna was disconnected from her children and it is further emphasized when Chopin wrote, “in short, Mrs. Pontellier was not a mother-woman” (8). This further emphasizes how Edna is not a woman who has motherly qualities, as further demonstrated by this excerpt:

“She was fond of her children in an uneven, impulsive way. She would sometimes gather them passionately to her heart; she would sometimes forget them. The year before they had spent part of the summer with their grandmother Pontellier in Iberville. Feeling secure regarding their happiness and welfare, she did not miss them except with an occasional intense longing. Their absence was a sort of relief, though she did not admit this, even to herself. It seemed to free her of a responsibility which she had blindly assumed and for which Fate had not fitted her.” 

In the book, even Mr. Pontellier’s mother is worried about the Pontellier children. As Mr. Pontellier travels frequently,  Edna is left to care for the children Edna should not have had children if she knew she was not able or willing to take care of them. Edna herself acts in a very childish and improper way, as she simply gives her children to their nurse if she is not in a caring mood. 

Edna again acted more selfishly when she and Robert LeBrun were deeply in love with one another and having an affair. This was made clear throughout the book, especially when Mademoiselle Reisz is having a conversation with Edna regarding Robert’s letters. Mademoiselle Reisz says to Edna, “It’s because he loves you, poor fool” (80), and she questions her, “are you in love with Robert” (81)? She simply replies, “yes” (81). However, as Robert and Mr. Pontellier are gone, Edna discovers another person for whom she can share her passions with, Alcée Arobin. This relationship demonstrates how weak and selfish Edna really is. She is not in love with Arobin, as she still loves Robert, but she still cheats on Robert until he returns home. At their first encounter when he returns, she remains with Arobin, as Robert is not willing to say whether he loves her or not. However, as soon as Robert says that he loves her, Arobin completely disappears from Edna’s life. She is a married woman who cheats on all of her lovers because she is self-centred.

Toward’s the end of the novel, Edna’s actions prove her selfishness even further. Her suicide and dismissal of her own children, husband, and lovers show how she is far too self-centred to have any long term relationship. Right before committing suicide, Edna thought about her husband, Raoul, and Etienne: “They were a part of her life. But they need not have thought that they could posses her, body and soul” (116). She has little concern over their wellbeing but rather discovers a reason to commit suicide. Her final thought was about Robert, “He did not know; he did not understand. He would never understand” (116). She has not considered breaking her dear lover’s heart, but rather how he had never understood her. Edna had abandoned every person who she had cared for and relied upon, without much thought. With all this in mind, Edna, in my opinion, is a very selfish person. Having a relationship while still in a marriage, committing suicide without any thought, and others are the reasons why I think Edna is selfish. However, a theory that I have is that Edna never put any thought into her life at the start or was scared of what was going to happen. When she met Leonce, she jumped to the idea of what she thought she wanted, as that seems to be the just of what others at the time thought of him. As stated at the start of the book, “ Mr. Pontellier was a great favourite, and ladies, men, children, even nurses, were always on hand to say goodbye to him” [8], Edna could have seen that other liked and wanted a man like Mr. Pontllier, and as she was described as good looking, ended up with him very easily and never truly had figured out what type of person she wanted to be with. But, regardless of that, I can not get over what Edna has done and therefore, I will say she is a very selfish person. 



Is Edna selfish? [The Awakening]

Is Edna really being selfish for choosing herself over others? The answer varies. With the setting being in the 19th century, women’s main priority should be to take care of their children. On the other hand, Edna is described as not a “mother-woman”. During an exchange of argument about what a mother owes to her children, Edna proclaims that her individuality is more important than motherhood,

“I would give up the unessential; I would give my money, I would give my life for my children, but I wouldn’t give myself” (p. 57).

Edna’s adolescence pushes her to strive for self-discovery, resulting in her neglecting responsibilities such as maternity. 


Edna betrays the trust of Leonce Pontellier, whom she’s married to when she confesses her feelings towards Robert. Mademoiselle Reisz questions Edna,

“Are you in love with Robert” (p. 81)?

As Edna replies with a simple,

“yes” (p. 81).

Although, while both her husband and Robert are gone, she finds another person to share her passion with, Alcee Arobin. This demonstrates her selfish ways as she is not in love with Arobin, nevertheless, she still keeps him around for her own desires of affection. However, soon as Robert professes his love for Edna, she abandons Arobin. Edna’s way of cheating, both on her husband and Robert, reveals to us that she is egotistic. 


Approaching the end of the novel, Edna shares her final thought about Robert before she commits suicide,

“he did not know; he did not understand. He would never understand” (p. 116).

Instead of contemplating how she would break her dearest companion’s heart with her final act, she only reflects on how he had never understood her. Edna deserts everyone who had cared for her and who she had relied upon, without much consideration. 


Edna’s actions can be justified with social standards today. However, She did them all in aiming to fill the void in her miserable life, where she had no control over anything without the approval of a man. Edna sees more to her life, potentials, and dreams, although she never had the chance to proceed as she could not handle the consequences it came with. As a mother and as a lover, Edna is selfish. As an individual, her choice of putting herself first in any circumstances and to control her own destiny makes her almost admirable.


Is Edna selfish?

In the book The Awakening, we see two sides of the story which leads me to be undecided. Edna’s naiveness and reliance on her husband’s income had made me conclude her selfish. And yet she chose her family before love interest and herself which shows a side of she’s not selfish.

“The acme of bliss, which would have been a marriage with the trage-
dian, was not for her in this world. As the devoted wife of a man who worshiped her, she felt she would take her place with a certain dignity in the world of reality, closing the portals forever behind her upon the realm of romance and dreams.” (Act7, 22)

Society in 1899 holds traditional values such as women catering the child and men go to work. Due to these values, women are expected to be responsible for house chores and tend their husbands. Women are being scolded by men when they voice their own opinion.

“You ought to feel that such things are not flattering to say to a fellow.”… “Should our whole intercourse consist of an exchange of compliments? Ma foi!”…“It isn’t pleasant to have a woman tell you—” (Act8, p24-25)

We could understand why Edna would be perceived to be selfish as she is irresponsible as a mother.

“She was fond of her children in an uneven, impulsive way. She would sometimes gather them passionately to her heart; she would sometimes forget them” (Act7,p23)

Although it is rude to neglect her own children to live in her own terms, society in 1899 would not allow women to be in charge of their own life. It is understandable that she wants to change her fate. It is debatable if she is selfish or not because she is a woman who wants to take control of her life, but she has established a family already which makes it difficult for her to be free without having complications and consequences.


Duality of selfishness

Selfishness is the opposite of altruism, meaning being concerned excessively or exclusively, for oneself or one’s own advantage, pleasure, or welfare, regardless of others (from Wikipedia). In Kate Chopin’s book “The Awakening”, she tells the story of Edna Pontellier, a young, married lady with two children, who’s life views change completely throughout the summer vacation. The book shows the process character development, spicing it with the obstacles that Edna has to get windward of, arguing the position of women in the society, criticizing established norms towards women and questioning love, and the institute of marriage as a whole. However, to answer the question “is Edna Pontellier selfish?”, we have to look closer, from different angles and perspectives.

My observation starts right on the first pages of the book, where Edna Pontellier is introduced as a happy, married woman. She is at her cottage, talking to a young man called Robert Lebrun, after bathing. The picture of an ideal life where nothing happens is drawn. Yet, one thing in this almost utopian chapter gives away the alarming set of actions that await for the reader:

“You are burnt beyond recognition,” he added, looking at his wife as one looks at a valuable piece of personal property which has suffered some damage.
(Chapter I, pg. 2)

This unhidden message left by the author sets the first concerning thought about the plot. Kate Chopin describes the way Edna’s husband looks at her as if Edna was nothing more than a valuable object, property of Mr. Pontellier, however, Edna does not show any reaction to that. She continues to laugh and enjoy her chat with Robert. Edna is happy and joyful, at least so it seems, despite the way her husband treats her.

However, this illusion is harshly and quickly broken, when Mr. Pontellier repeats this type of behavior straight after, at the start of Chapter 2:

He reproached his wife with her inattention, her habitual neglect of the children. If it was not a mother’s place to look after children, whose on earth was it?… [Mr. Pontellier falls asleep]… She began to cry a little, and wiped her eyes on the sleeve of her peignoir… She could not have told why she was crying. Such experiences as the foregoing were not uncommon in her married life… An indescribable oppression, which seemed to generate in some unfamiliar part of her consciousness, filled her whole being with a vague anguish…
(Chapter III, pg. 6-7)

In this part, Kate Chopin shows what is “behind the scenes” of what at first sight looks like a happy life. Edna is unhappy, even though her husband cares her with kindness and money, he also depresses her with allegations about her suggested carelessness towards children and housekeeping to the point where she cries. Here, there are two ways of looking at the situation. One might say that Edna is being oppressed by her husband, that she does not deserve this kind of treatment and she must stand up for herself, making her the victim. However, someone might also settle with Mr. Pontellier’s position, claiming that while he brings all the money home and pays for all expenses, Edna is weak and irresponsible in the ways of housekeeping, making her the cause of the problem. In my opinion, both sides of the argument are right but need to be combined to achieve the answer. While Edna is affected by the way her husband treats her, she did accept him and marry him, therefore as a responsible human being, should have forethought. However, Edna Pontellier is not responsible at all:

Her marriage to Leonce Pontellier was purely an accident… He fell in love, as men are in the habit of doing, and pressed his suit with an earnestness and an ardor which left nothing to be desired. He pleased her; his absolute devotion flattered her.
(Chapter VII, pg. 21)

As with the children, Robert and all changes she makes, Edna does not think things through, her thoughts are full of emotions, much like a teenager who is trying to sort out their life not knowing what knob and where to tweak. So when Robert shows up, Edna gets a grasp of intoxicating freedom which throws her mind around in her own head. Therefore Edna is the one responsible for the consequences of her actions.

As the story progresses, Edna Pontellier starts building and developing her character, partially thanks to Madame Ratignolle who is portraying a person opposite to Edna and helping her out with life advice and emotional guidance, and Robert Lebrun, who shows her that what Leonce Pontellier has to offer is not everything and she does not have to be a housewife. He caresses her with sweet words and respect, and in the end, she does give up to it. Edna opens up and starts to realize that she is not satisfied with her life, that she is not her husband’s dog to control, and starts making changes. She picks up painting, confronts her husband, and makes some changes around the house. These changes seem to be for the better, she looks to be happier than before:

“How handsome Mrs. Pontellier looked!” said Madame Lebrun to her son.
Ravishing!” he admitted. “The city atmosphere has improved her. Some way she doesn’t seem like the same woman.”
(Chapter XX, pg. 72)

However, while she is doing so, she forgets about everything else. She moves into a different house, she gives away the children to their grandmother and hosts a big evening for her friends, while her husband pays the bills. So again Edna is in a difficult position in the question of selfishness. She tries to improve her life, but that comes at the expense of her family and relatives. Previously I made a point that Edna is selfish because she acts irresponsibly while being responsible for the consequences of her actions. That point can be applied here as well. Whatever Edna is doing, for the sake of her own happiness or not, her past actions have resulted in a family, children, relationships, and she should forethink what her actions will cost her, as any of them will have an effect on others (including her children), and for any of them, she may be held responsible. However, in the end, she cheats – by killing herself. This is a very sensitive subject that involves more questions that are subjective to each person, such as what is the value of human life? My view on it is that Edna, high on the intoxicating freedom of choice and feelings forgets about all other lives she affects, such as her own children (in the book Edna does admit she would not sacrifice herself for her children though) and makes critical actions.

At this point, some might expect me to conclude calling Edna selfish. Howbeit, I have to acknowledge that Edna’s character is fictional, it has been created and developed by the author to prove a point, which is not to show that Edna is selfish. So the answer to the question really depends on the prism through which we shed the light of this story. If we inspect Edna’s character, her inability to evaluate her own past and forethink her own actions does mean she is selfish. However, if we are ready to let this skip for the sake of authors point, then no, Edna is not selfish.


“At the ‘Cadian Ball”and “The Storm”

In the passage of “At the ‘Cadian Ball'”, because of Alcee‘s rejection, Calixta accepts Bobinot’s love directly and promises to marry Bobinot, which makes Bobinot feel overjoyed. Obviously, emotions dictate Calixta’s decision at that time. In contrast to Calixta’s attraction to Alcee, Alcee truly loves Clarisee. Because Clarisee gradually begins to like Alcee, plus Alcee’s final cajoling of Clarisee,  which makes them finally together.

For The Storm”, Calixa and Alcee  are not really happy in their respective marriages. If Calixa is truly happy in her marriage, she will not have sex with Alicee. Likewise, Alcee is able to experience new pleasures while having sex with Calixta, a sign that his love life with his wife is not full. We can say that the various limitations of marriage deprive Calixa and Alicee  of their sexual pleasure in their respective marriages, so that they will have extramarital affairs in the context of storms. In the passage, such disloyalty on the part of both of them in the storm makes everyone happy in the end. Furthermore, author even reflects that sexual satisfaction outside of marriage is not negative and can increase the strength and happiness of the relationship between two people (As far as I am concerned, I cannot accept such behavior).


June 1st Independent reading journal

In the Part 1 chapter 10 of Richard Wright’s Black Boy, we can see that the idea of stealing comes to Richard after he finds that the savings he is saving every day mopping the hotel floor are too low.
In his hesitation he also ponders the link between racism and theft. Before that, Richard keeps changing jobs, like under the constant threat of racial discrimination, he often made mistakes that cost him his job. For example, on the way out of a hotel he complains about the wrongdoings of a black woman who has been harassed by a white man.

The southern whites would rather have had Negros who stole, work for them than Negroes who knew, however dimly, the worth of their own humanity. Hence, whites placed a premium upon black deceit; they encouraged irresponsibility.                                                                                                                                       (p. 200)

I like this passage because this is probably a true relationship between racism and black theft. White people encourage black people to commit stealing or other unethical behavior in order to support their theory that black people are inferior. As Richard is trying to reflect, the reason why white people encourage irresponsibility of black people is to support the lie of black inferiority. Like once black people show a normal human face or show all the true values of a human being (do right things), white people will feel scared because they are afraid that their own unjust positions will be untenable.


June 1st IRJ

The book Candide by Voltaire starts off about the life of a boy named Candide who lives in a castle in Westphalia. He kicked out of the castle and sets out on an adventure, Candide believes that everything happens for a reason.  About halfway through the story they reach the land of EL Dorado. This land seems to be imaginary because of the way Voltaire discribes it.

 The old man received the two strangers on a sofa stuffed with humming bird feathers and served them various liquors in diamond goblets (p. 57)

This quote is important to the story because the Land of El Dorado is a main event in the story. It is also one of the most interesting parts because of the imaginary aspect which which helps develop a clear picture the scene mentally.


June 1st IRJE

Black Boy, written by Richard Wright gives a powerful account of Richard’s journey from innocence to experience. Throughout his childhood, Richard’s mother and granny are always trying to persuade him to believe in God and join the church, but he always refuses. One night at church, the preacher isolated the people belonging to no church and the people professing no religion and brought them all into a room. The preacher tells them that they are in great peril and he wants the members of the church to pray for them. The preacher calls up the mothers of the boys to kneel and pray for them. Richard’s mother begs him to believe in God, for if he didn’t his mother would be embarrassed in front of the entire church. This forced Richard to shake the preacher’s hand and become a candidate for baptism. However, being baptized didn’t change Richard’s mind about God.

Even after recieving the “right hand of fellowship,” Sunday school bored me. The Bible stories seemed slow and meaningless when compared to the bloody thunder of pulp narrative. And I was not alone in feeling this; other boys went to sleep in Sunday school. Finally the boldest of us confessed that the entire thing was a fraud and we played hooky from church. (p. 155)

I like this passage because even though Richard got tricked into being baptized, he still stuck with what he believed in and not what everyone around him was telling him.


Do you ever really settle with settling? “the storm and at the cadian ball”-Isaac Salvador

When I was reading “at the Cadian Ball”, it took me a while to understand who was who with all the characters. I was confused a lot because I thought that the name “Alcée” was a girls name. I was really confused because it said his or him but  then I finally realized it was because it was a he. I was a bit disappointed with the chapter/story because Calixta was into Alcée and they ended up not together and then later on, when they were both married, being unfaithful to their spouses. I think that Calixta is happy in her marriage but that she had passion for Alcée that she doesn’t have with Bobinot. I think that she likes him and who he represents and that she would like someone like him to be the father to her kid. However, I think that she is attracted to Alcée in a romantic way that she does not find in Bobinot.

“When he touvhed her breasts they gave themselves up in quivering extacy, inviting his lips. Her mouth was a fountain of delight. And when he possessed her, they seemed to swoon together at the very borderland of life’s myserty”[270]

I think that she does not regret being with Alcée but that she also loves Bobinot. I think that the two of them are what she wants as she does not find the one person she wants to be with. I think that what she did was morally wrong and I really disliked that part, but I do think that she does deserve what she wants, which is an entirely different man altogether.


At the Cadian Ball and The Storm

I think Calixta marries Bobinot because she knows that he is in love with her. I think that Alcee marries Clarisse because she told him that she loves him. I think that both Calixta and Alcee are unhappy in their marriages because if they were happy, then they wouldn’t have been unfaithful. There wasn’t any consequence to their unfaithfulness because they weren’t caught, but if they had been caught they would have been divorced. The Storm raises questions about marriage and moral values when Clarisse receives Alcee’s letter. Clarisse doesn’t seem to be happy with her marriage, but she feels that she must always be loyal to her husband, even though he isn’t being loyal to her.


The Cadian Ball and The Storm

Kate Chopin has many works that sparked controversy. This includes At The Cadian Ball and The Storm. These works can be considered as a part 1 and 2 of the same story and they both have a similar theme. The difference between love vs attraction. In At The Cadian Ball, from the very beginning we can see that Bobinot may have a hard time deciphering these alike terms.

Why could he not love Ozenia? Who would marry him tomorrow; or Fronie, or any of a dozen others, rather than that little Spanish vixen? Calixta… (179)

This supports the claim that Bobinot may not be faithful and he is looking more  for attraction rather than love. In The Storm we see something similar happening. Neither Calixta or Alcee are happy in their marriages and end up sleeping with each other. However, this is not love, this is attraction. Love lasts much longer than 1 night with each other, attraction does not. That is why  it was easy for Calixta to go back to Bobinot. I found both of these works to be quite interesting and they raised a lot of interesting questions that I would like to look into deeper in the future.


The Cadian Ball and the Storm – Eloise

These two short stories by Kate Chopin follow two couples. Bobinot marries Calixta, and Alèes marries Clarisse.  However Calixta and Alèes are attracted to each other. Some of the questions raised are whether Calixta and Alèes are happy in their marriages. I think that really depends on what part of the marriage you look at. I don’t think either of them truly love their spouses, but I don’t think they are happy in the marriage. I also don’t think that Calixta and Alèes love each other, Alèes seems to be attracted to Calixtas body during the storm.

He pushed her hair back

from her face that was warm and steaming.

Her lips were as red and moist as

pomegranate seed. Her white neck and a

glimpse of her full, firm bosom disturbed

him powerfully (II)

She was frightened by the storm yet he was focused on how she looked. I didn’t really see an honest connection between them. I do think they are both happy where they are in life though. Caixta has her family and was worried about them getting out of the storm and staying safe which means she does care about them, and Alèes sent a loving letter to his wife at the end of the story checking is and making sure she was okay.


Also in The Storm I noticed that “their” was spelt “the:r” and im not sure if that is just a typo or if it means anything.

Calixta felt him to see if he

were dry, and seemed to express nothing but

satisfaction at the:r safe return.


At the Cadian Ball and The Storm

One topic that I noticed was brought up in both at the Cadian ball and the storm was about marriage. In the Cadian ball story this is shown through the relationship between Bobinot and Calixta, he is in love with her, but she does not feel the same way about him. This left me questioning why she would marry him she didn’t really love him and does he know she docent really love him. The other relationship in this story was between Alcée and Clarisse. At the ball it is shown that Alcée is in love with Clarisse and with Calixta but in the end he ends up marrying Clarisse. This made me question what the reasoning was for him choosing to marry Clarisse. After reading The Storm I was mainly left with questions about the idea of people actually loving the people they are married to and why they are not loyal to them. In the example of Calixta not being loyal to her husband I think it is because although she agreed to marry him she was not truly happy in her relationship with him and she did not truly love him.


At the Cadian Ball and The Storm

I believe that the reason Calixta married Bobinot is because he actually cared about her, and made sure she was happy and comfortable. Alcee marries Clarisse because she told him she loved him. I think that Callixta is happy in her marriage, because Bobinot trears her well. I also think that Alcee is happy in his marriage, because he loves Clarisse and she loves him. when Calixta and Alcee are unfaithful to their spouses, there are no consequences, because they never tell anybody what happened and go on with their lives normally. The Storm raises questions about marriage and controversial moral values because of the infidelity that takes place. I do not believe that if people do cheat on their spouses, they should try to keep it from the other person, because if the other person eventually finds out from someone else, it will be a lot worse than if they just tell them as soon as it happens. It is not good to cheat on your husband or wife, but  it is better to tell the truth if you do.


June 1st IRJE- Andrea

In “You” by Caroline Kepnes, the author shows us some irony in the book that raises a lot of questions. The plot of the book is based on Joe being Beck’s stalker, but to what point does beck become crazy about joes two that she is also willing to do anything just like he does.

“I get it, okay? You don’t hear from me for a while and then I call you fifty times and show up at your doorstep like some crazy stalker” (p. 210).

This is something Beck tells Joe when going to his house after he hadn´t heard from her for weeks. And she tells him how she bribed a little kid into giving her his address. I thought it was something really ironic, how she says that Joe is going to think of her as a crazy stalker, when in reality Joe is the crazy one who is willing to murder someone in order to get to her.


Ethical side of Kate Chopin’s “At the ‘Cadian ball”

Two stories, named “At the ‘Cadian ball” and “The storm” by the author Kate Chopin written in the 1892.The plot talks about 2 unfaithful people – Alcee and Calixta, who have met each other and had some feeling forming, but ended up going different ways. The second story continues the first, moving forward 3-4 years, where both characters who have started famililes and got children meet once again and be unfaithful to their spouses. The plot raises issues still important in the modern world, questioning the established ethical and moral norms which have worked for centuries, such as monogamous dyadic relationships, the institute of marriage and the effect of former on happiness of those in a marriage.
The first observation about the play can be be observed two times, and may be seen in both characters. First time is shown by Alcee, who leaves Calixta with Clarisse:
Clarisse, without a word without a glance back at the girl. He had forgotten he was leaving her there. But Carisse whispered something to him, and he turned back to say “Good-night, Calixta”. And offer his hand to press through the railing. She pretended not to see it.
Kate Chopin, The Awakening and selected stories, page 187
In this extract Alcee does not show any feelings for Calixta or sadness when leaving her, despite being physically close to her minutes ago. He almost forgets about even saying a word to her when leaving. This is sign tells us that Alcee does not care for women as long-term companions, nor as a loving partner. He forgot about Calixta in matter of minutes and gone back to his life. This may be seen a claim, that there are some people who do not care about feelings or long-terms relationships, they are polygamous, they do not fix on one partner only. This is shown again on the next page, where Calixta says she does not care whether Bobinot marries her. However, when he asked her to kiss him, Calixta refuses, saying she does not want to. This shows that she chooses Bobinot as a long-term partner not for the love, but for the practicality of it. So does Alcee, when Clarisse expresses her feelings for him. He decides to settle down with her, despite not having feelings for her.
The second observation can be seen in the second part of the story, and again, can be seen in both characters (which is another observation of sort). During a storm, families of Alcee and Calixta are separated, and Alcee finds her house as a shelter. The two characters left alone in an empty house end up making love. Later, when Bobinot and his son come back, Calixta acts in a much more happy and enthusiastic way:
Bobinot’s explanations and apoligues which he had been composing all along the way, died on his lips as Calixta felt him to see if he were dry, and seemed to express nothing but satisfaction at their safe return.
Kate Chopin, “The Storm”, end of part III”
Alcee seemed to act in a more happy way as well, writing a letter to his wife. This shows again a point that the author raises, perhaps the some people prefer polygamous relationships, and feel better than when stopping themselves from forming new relationships with other people.
In conclusion, the author Kate Chopin raises some questions important throughout the years, still relevant today. Ethics of polygamous relationships is a dilemma discussed between more liberal and conservative people. While showing this issue, the author also touched on the subject of equality and feminism, where the issue was shown on both a man and a woman.

The storm

All of the past plays we read in English Literature have the same theme that the author tried to express, the possibility of a woman. A major idea of Kate Chopin’s is how women feeling unhappy and subjugate in marriage. In the short story called At the “Cadian Ball”, Calixtra doesn’t have proper manners for a lady during this time. She doesn’t have any limits on her physical and verbal activities.  She is also taking care of her home, she is super obsessed with keeping the house clean. As soon as her husband returns home from the storm, he hopes that  Calixta wouldn’t be mad about the mess. These actions show that he cares what his wife thinks, he wants to please her and he clearly loves her. The storm is a  setting of the story and a very important symbol. I have noticed that Chopin is using French phrases, which has a big impact on us, as we learn about another theme of the story which is culture. The similarities between this short story and “Pygamion” is how upper-class people treat the ones who are lower them. Alcee won’t marry Calixtra because she is from the lower class. The authors tell us about the character and what classes they belong to by showing the manners of their speaking. In my opinion, the main accent of the short story is on women making decisions, Calixtra is suffering because she is silent, on the other hand, Clarisse takes what she wants as she “haunts” her wants.




At the Cadian ball and The storm stories

In “At the cadian ball” by Kate Chopin, it is clear how both love and attraction are two different things. Attraction is mistaken for love in this story. The story’s plot is about the lives of two men and two woman who have different stories, yet they all meet at a certain point. The first couple that the story introduces the readers with is Bobinot and Calixta, he is in love with her, but she her feelings for him are not the same. This is clear when in page 187, he asks to kiss her and she replies, “I don’t want to kiss you, Bobinot”. So, one of the main questions raised after reading this is why does Calixta marry Bobinot if she did not love him? Then the author introduces us with the second man, Alcée, who was attending to the ball that Bobinot did not wanted to attend, so Bobinot becomes worried that Alicée can try to flirt with Calixta. But Alcée is in love with the second women called Clarisse. At the ball something happens between Alcée and Calixta, but the both end up returning to the ones they are supposed to be in love with. And Alcée ends up marrying Clarisse, and Calixta ends up marrying Bobinot. But then another question is raised, are they both happy in their marriages? And I think Calixta is not because she does not love Bobinot, but I do think that Alicée is, even though he had a thing for Calixta, he did love Clarisse too.

Then in “The storm”, the sequel to “At the cadian ball” the author shows us a different side to the previous story. Calixta and her husband were in the middle of a storm their son Bibi was playing outside, so while Bobinot went to find him, Calixta reencountered with Alicée and she offered him shelter, but it was something more than shelter, and while his husband was out in the storm, she was happily having an affair and being unfaithful to her husband. She had no consequences for her infidelity because as her husband returns, Alicée disappears, and she stays quiet, as if nothing had happened. I think that in these stories marriage does not mean love and loyalty, Calixta does not Bobinot, and she is not compromised to him, so why is she married to him? I also noticed that as they both cheated to their partners and acted as nothing happened, they seemed kinder to their families, how Alicée writes a love letter to his wife and how Calixta has a family dinner. The lies seem to make their marriage stronger instead of destroying it.


Short Stories

While Bobinot and Bibi are stuck in a shop because of a storm, Calixta is home being infidel to her husband. What bothered me the most about these short stories is how in the first one, The ‘Cadian Ball appears to have a happy ending.  However in The Storm, there is a happy ending as well, but this is because there were no consequences to Calixta’s and Alcée’s actions. In these stories, I am annoyed about two things.  Spanish people are pictured as indecent you could say. The second thing is that Calixta is bold enough to sit at the table with her husband and child as if nothing happened. She won’t suffer any consequences. I do not understand the meaning of these texts, but if I had a guess it would be that marriage is meaningless, or that sex is extremely glorified. Maybe it is seen as something very important and it shouldn’t be. Anyway, I disliked the ending.


The ‘Cadian Ball

I found it interesting that in “The Storm” Bobinot’s name did not have an accent on it, but in “The ‘Cadian Ball” it was spelled “Bobinôt”. I especially liked the vivid imagery.

The rain was over; and the sun was turning the glistening green world into a palace of gems. [2]

This was after the great storm and Bobinot is describing what the world looked like.

I do not understand what this sentence means.

Bobinot and Bibi, trudging home, stopped without at the cistern to make themselves presentable.

Why is the word “without” there?

Overall, I enjoyed reading the two short stories. Sometimes it became a little hard to read with bits of Creole mixed in. After I realized that the beginnings and ending of words are cut off, and figured out some of the French words, it became easier to read.


At The Cadian Ball & The Storm

When reading a book or watching a movie, I always hope the people that are in love get to be together. So in “At The Cadian Ball” I was a bit disappointed that Calixta and Alcee did not end up together. After reading “The Storm”, my disappointment did fade away a bit because although the 2 lovers did not end up together, they are still happy in their marriages

It is interesting that so long ago, people would host soirees for Cajun people to find the people we would marry. Now, that would seem odd to go to a soiree and find your person in that crowd of people.



Candide by Voltaire started slow with little interest about a boy named Candide that lived in a castle along with other characters. Once he was kicked out of the castle he started his journey. The book began to gain my interest when the book took me through the places he went and the people he met. One of the most interesting parts of the book is that Candide believes that all things happen for a reason and that helps guid him to his next destination.


Candide Personal Response

          Candide, written by Voltaire is a novel where our protagonist experienced many mis-fortunes. At the beginning of the book I didn’t understood why it is that it follows a really fast pace, where the author instead of giving many details tells many stories. I found interesting how evert single character had their own amazing adventures full of ups and downs. I think that my favorite part was when they arrived at El Dorado and how after all they had suffered they finally found a utopia. And after finishing the book I still can’t understand why they left and if I would do the same under the same circumstances. I this made me question myself about what are people willing to to do for love, and if people often regret their decisions such as Candide. I found ironic how after all they’ve been through and are finally at peace they are bored and maybe worst than sometimes in their past. This made me think about something I heard a couple of days ago: “sometimes we are happy and don’t even know it”. And if I look back to Candide’s life, he was. He enjoyed his time traveling with his companions, being rich in Paris and going to the theater, or his time at El Dorado. So after this I think we can answer that dilemma Martin and Candide had on whether people are really happy. 


Candide Personal Response

Candide is Voltaire’s masterpiece of philosophical satire.
By combining the third-person narration, Voltaire brings readers’ thoughts easily into the various experiences of Candide, which plays a role of ideological enlightenment at that time. I find that Candide’s series of miserable experiences are actually Voltaire’s personal experience and psychological process after I understand Voltaire’s lifetime, and all of these things represent the corrupt and ignorant social reality at that time.

There are many themes that Voltaire shows throughout the whole story. As far as I am concerned, the most impressive theme is the criticism of “Optimism”. I think Voltaire uses the whole adventure as a preparation for Candide’s total denial of “Everything is for the best in the world” in the end, like we can clearly see the change of Candide’s attitudes towards Pangloss’ s doctrine with he  experiencing more and more disasters. At the beginning, Voltaire sets the whole situation into the background of optimism, and everyone still advocates the doctrine of Pangloss, especially Candide. The first time that Candide begins to suspect “Optimism” is the death of kind Jacques, which not only shows the reduction of his image of the best world and his pain, but also reveals Voltaire’s preliminary critique of the fatuous logic of optimism. Candide’s views on this doctrine have changed over the course of his adventures until he sees a black man with a leg cut off and he really begins to reject the idea of the best world. The feeling “I finally must renounce your Optimism”(Candide, p. 64) has proven it. Finally, after an unexpected reunion and the Turk’s enlightenment, Candide decides to abandon “Optimism” altogether and makes up his mind to create beauty with his own hands-“We must cultivate our garden” (Candide, p. 119).

All in all, Voltaire wants to use Candide to satirize Leibniz’s belief and tell that the pious but suffering man must abandon the illusion of “everything is for the best in this world” in their head and take their tools in their hand to create real beauty (to cultivate their “garden”).

For me, this is a meaningful book and plays an essential role in mental revolution for that society.


A Doll’s House video response

The differences between the movie and the novel are distinctive. The movie provides facial expressions from the characters to complement the dialogue. Whereas the novel is based on your imagination of the imagery. At the end of the film, Nora and Torvald had long conversations and long pauses in between. The novel is less time-consuming in terms of long pauses, but the tension did not escalate into a messy fight like the movie. Finally, the movie captures Nora’s ignorance, neglecting consequences from society. The novel’s dialogue on portraying her ignorance used vague words to describe her uncertainty to the community.


Candide Personal Response

Candide, written by Voltaire, describes the misadventures of the main character Candide. I did not find the beginning of the story very enjoyable because I found it quite slow. However, the story does move faster later on in the book. There were many parts of Candide that I did enjoy. I found Cunegonde’s and the old woman’s stories very interesting. I also liked reading about Candide’s adventure in El Dorado. I thought that some parts of the book were quite humourous which I also liked. Overall, I enjoyed Candide and I think that it’s a good book.


A Doll’s House PR- Andrea

After reading “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen, I realized that this play raises a lot of questions related to love, marriage, lies, women, etc. I think that the most important question raised is whether Torvald knows Nora well enough in order to love her. Throughout the play we see how Nora and Torvald realize that they never really had true love in their relationship, and I think that this could have been because they both have different perspectives of what love means. I think that also the way Torvald treats Nora has to do so much with the book’s title, as she says that Torvald only treats her as a doll-wife and how he thinks she is little and delicate, and he sometimes treats her with love and affection, yet sometimes he is also very mean and cruel to her. Another important issue in this play, that brings conflict and drama to it, is lies. Lies are also really important throughout the play, I think it is also what ended up breaking Nora and Torvalds’s marriage, because Nora got tangled in a web of lies, and a good marriage needs trust and honesty, which in their case they did not have. Also, money had to do with this lies, so it can be seen as something very toxic in the play, something that causes relationships to break. I really liked how the play ended, because she was very clear with the decision of living her husband and even though it was kind of like an open ending because we did not know where se went, it was also like a close ending because after Nora made her decision, it doesn’t raise any questions for the reader, or at least for me, on what Nora is going to do next.

I think that both the play and the film are similar because they both address these important topics the same. I think that the way the characters are described in the play match the characters from the film, same happens with the setting, the way I imagined the house and the setting to be is pretty much the same as in the film. One big difference from the film and the play is that in the play we see how Nora is very distant to their children and she doesn’t really seem to care much for them, and in the fil version there is a scene where she finds her daughter in the hallway and she was supposed to be in bed so Nora shows how she actually cares for her. But I think that overall, the two main differences are the scenes that happen between Dr. Rank and Nora, and the final scene at the end with Nora and Torvald, we see that even the dialogue in this final scene changed a lot from the original play. I personally liked better the film version better because they modified the ending a little bit and it explains more the name of the play and why Nora leaves. This comparison is also similar to “Pygmalion”, because they also did a major change from the play to the film version, when they made Eliza come back in the film, but in the play is an open ending where she leaves. I think in both plays, love plays and important role, because both women are involved in bad relationships, even though in “Pygmalion” Eliza´s relationship with Higgins in not that clear, but at the end of both plays, the women leave.



Pygmalion PR

Since I started reading this play I knew Higgins was going to get me mad a lot of times, that is because he treats Eliza so poorly and he talks to her the same way. That is visible now too, upper classes treating lower classes as if they owned them. I think that apart from that Higgins is a good person, he can’t control that because maybe that was the idea back then, he has good intentions with Eliza even though it looks like if he is just experimenting on her as in the play it has been said as it to be an experiment only, I also think Higgins as time passes starts to understand that Eliza is not just an experiment.

When I compare Pygmalion to A dolls House the first thing that comes to my mind is men treating woman as objects, but as you read through you can see that both woman in both books have some respect for themselves and in that I really like that. I can also see how in both books, both women wants to take control of themselves, You can see at the end of Pygmalion, Elisa becomes Independent.



During an evening walk in London, phonetics professor Henry Higgins meets a flower girl Eliza Doolittle, who is not distinguished by any manners of a middle-class girl, nor a competent articulate speech. Confident of his abilities, Henry makes a bet with his friend Colonel Pickering that in six months he will be able to turn the girl from a street vendor into a real duchess. Eliza, dreaming of a different life, agrees to take part in this experiment.

The cast of “Pygmalion” also left quite favorable impressions. Leslie Howard in the role of Professor Henry Higgins, a convinced bachelor, an accomplished cynic, and at the same time a talented professor of phonetics, in which, despite his stiffness, his “creation” managed to arouse real feelings.The performance of the British movie legend Wendy Hiller, for whom the role of Eliza Doolittle became a debut on a big scene and who managed to convey that transformation that took place not only outside but also inside herself.

Directed by Anthony Esquit and Leslie Howard, they created an intellectual comedy that is noted not only by its original humor but also affected by deep acute and social problems. On the one hand, the movie exposes the theme of social basics, more precisely, that with hard work and personal desire, you can achieve unprecedented results. The movie clearly taunts the representatives of the “royal blood” who are contemptuous of all the lower classes and perceiving them as an inanimate object, and therefore, with all their intellectual skills, they are morally and spiritually lower, as Higgins sank at the end of the film, when, despite the obvious, the successes of Eliza, still treated her as a subhuman, as a result of which he almost lost her forever.

The plot of the film almost entirely follows the content of the play. In the story, Eliza, dreams of getting a job in a real flower shop or getting a job as a maid with decent people, understands that she needs to change to realize her dream, and Professor Higgins can help her with this. Having decided to take private lessons from him, she did not imagine that she would have to move to him, where for the next six months they would drill her until they turned into real works of art, as Pygmalion had done with the statue of Galatea. The only problem is that the convinced bachelor Higgins involuntarily falls in love with his creation, but fearing to admit it and at the same time lose, stubbornly continues to scoff at even when Eliza did not deserve it. Eliza, who has become a real well-educated lady and has realized her place in this world, is ready to leave Higgins forever. The inner world of a person is not only how we talk, but how we perceive the world around us, our accumulated life experience, our impressions, emotions, and feelings. I sympathize with the girl who unwittingly became an experiment in her professional, but a little crazy, puts her subject at the forefront, if we say the right thing, then everything will work out right away in life and everything will be fine and excellent. Higgins does not see a woman in her, he does not perceive her as a person, he tried to prove something to himself and it laid consequences.

Summary In general, Pygmalion is a good adaptation of Bernard Shaw’s play, which has its own unique atmosphere of witty humor and deep philosophy. Although the movie turned out to be more romantic and cheerful than the original play, this did not aggravate the overall impression of viewing. Despite the years, this movie has not lost its relevance and remains interesting for many generations.

Talking about the similarities between “The Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen’sand “Pygmalion” by George Bernard Shaw’, the main problem of both plays is the transformation of Nora and Eliza which ultimately changes each of the women. As an example, Nora assumes the responsibilities of a wife; Eliza assumes the responsibilities for learning, and caring for Higgins and his home. However, in terms of Nora’s growth as a person, she is sure about her decision, that she can no longer live with her husband,  Eliza’s growth as a person is shown in the sense of herself, making her more demanding of men respect.


Post without a title by Isaac

Pygmalion, the play, by George Bernard Shaw was a twist on the original myth of Pygmalion. It took the classic form of the sculptor and turned it into a human. In the Myth of Pygmalion, the sculptor makes the statue and in the end they fall in love with each other and live happily ever after. In the play by Shaw, Dr. Higgins tries to transform Eliza (who the statue is in the story) into what he would see as this perfect woman and in the end, he is in love with her but they don’t live happily ever after. With the original Myth, there was the statue who was not alive and then got turned to life but in the play we looked at, Eliza was already a person and Higgins tried to make her into a new one of what he wanted her to be like. It made Eliza more like the statue as Higgins saw her more as a product than a person and that was the same case as in a “Doll’s house” with the men objectifying the women and treating them more like a possession than a person.

“I paid him five pounds for her”[Act 5 Pygmalion]

“Is that my song-lark chirruping out there?…Is that my little squirrel rummaging in there?”[P. 110 A Doll’s House]

In the play by George Bernard Shaw and Henrik Ibsen, there is a lot of sexism that then later turns into a  female empowerment ending with the women leaving the men and being independent.

“As I am now, I am no wife for you. … Listen Torvald, when a wife leaves her husband’s house, as i am now doing, I’ve heard that he is freed according to teh law from  all obligations towards her.” [P. 187 A Doll’s House]


Then I shall not see you again, Professor. Good bye. [She goes to the door].

[coming to Higgins] Good-bye, dear.

Good-bye, mother. [He is about to kiss her, when he recollects something]. Oh, by the way, Eliza, order a ham and a Stilton cheese, will you? And buy me a pair of reindeer gloves, number eights, and a tie to match that new suit of mine, at Eale & Binman’s. You can choose the color. [His cheerful, careless, vigorous voice shows that he is incorrigible].

[disdainfully] Buy them yourself. [She sweeps out].” [End of act 5]

When I was reading the play of Pygmalion, I would read it as Eliza being very helpless at the beginnig and that she would look up to Dr. Higgins as some great person. Later when I watched the movie, the ideas of what the characters were like completely changed for me and made it a whole different story. I think the biggest difference for all movies and the plays is how we use our imagination to see the characters than to see them with our eyes and ears. You can have the exact same words and script and directions but when you are wathingt the play, your brain has a fixed idea of what they are like and it doesn’t allow any room for imagination.

Overall I really enjoyed reading George Bernard Shaw’s “Pygmalion” but I was disappointed at first because I thought it was going to be set in a Greek Mythology/story setting and so I was a bit discouraged after it was a more modern piece but still overall i enjoyed reading it and it got better and better as I went along and as Eliza grew more into a strong independent character.


Personal Response to Pygmalion

Although George Bernard Shaw based his storyline on the Greek myth of Pygmalion, a sculptor who fell in love with his own creation, Shaw’s version of the story is astounding. I am not typically intrigued by a lot of books and plays, however there is something about Shaw’s take on the Greek myth that catches my eye. Something that most definitely caught my eye was Eliza herself and what she represents in a modern day society like our own. Although in the original storyline, Eliza represents the sculpture that Higgins “creates”, but I have come to believe that she represents so much more. She represents all of us, and Higgins represents our society feeling the need to change who we are born to be. As we grow up we are heavily influenced by our toxic society to change how we were born, especially women. For as long as we can remember, women have been pushed by society into a little box of societal perfection, created by misogyny. Whether it is the message that what we wear is too distracting for the boys and we have to change because they cannot control themselves, or the simple idea that we are not and will never be good enough.

In the film version of the play, I could visually see the pain Eliza felt during the unenjoyable process of changing herself into what the world, or more so Higgins, wanted her to be. Although Higgins may have loved her in some sort of way, his misogynistic behavior is a simple explanation as to why Eliza wanted her independence back that she had before meeting Higgins. Although we all may have wanted the happily ever after between the two, just as we saw in A Doll’s House, it was never meant to be. Eliza and Nora both are women looking for their independence in a society filled with misogynistic behavior, and after a long run of suffering, they both got their independence. I personally enjoyed this play because, just like in A Doll’s House, these female characters are inspiring to women to not be afraid of taking charge of their own life and being independent. Because we are all capable of being independent, we just need the confidence to be like the two beautiful ladies in these two plays written by Shaw.


May 15th Independent reading journal

In the Part 1 chapter 7 of Richard Wright’s Black Boy, we can see that Richard begins to learn more about himself and his surroundings as well as the relationship between the environment around him and his present and future after he receives denials from everyone, including his own family, of the story The Voodoo of Hell’s Half-Acre he had published in the papers. Before that, Richard has done some research on race. For his short story, his classmates alienate him because they cannot understand his motives of writing such story. His families also object on various grounds, like Granny thinks this kind of story is like a lie, and mum thinks writing such things will make him look like he has weak mind which will affect his future. All these are constantly tempering Richard’s mind and heart.

As the outside world grew more meaningful, I become more meaningful, I became more concerned, tense…In me was shaping a yearning for a kind of consciousness, a mode of being that the way of life about me had said not to be, must bot be, and upon which the penalty of death had been placed.

(p. 169)

I like this passage because I think the author’s inner thoughts and reflections on his own situation and the changes in the outside world are valuable. We probably can see that Richard at that time has clearly observed the outside environment which will become a huge obstacle to his life. Although his dream (“a conscious desire” and “a way of life”) has established, but living in a place where the aspirations of the Negro are limited, he will always be on the wrong track, that’s why Richard expresses this feeling. To him, many things that exist, such as educational system, law and so on, are like lies that kill one’s dreams, which urges pushing against the current of environment is kind of like a crime.


Pygmalion personal response

I think that watching the movie helped me understand better than the book. The first thing I heard in the movie was the Cockney accent. This helped me a lot, because when I read the play I was trying to imagine what Eliza sounded like when she spoke, but when I heard this I didn’t need to. I also liked how when I watched the movie, I could actually see the setting, which helped me because it showed what the city was actually like during that time, both the rich parts and the poorer parts. I also liked how it showed what the poor people and the rich people dressed and looked like, because it helped me see why Higgins and Colonel Pickering wanted to turn Eliza from a street urchin into a duchess. Seeing everything in a visual way just helped me understand the story more.

Similarities that I found between Pygmalion and a Doll’s House are that both Higgins and Torvald seem to be similar, in that they don’t seem to think women are worthy of their time and attention, and all they are trying to do is change the main female character to have their tastes, and look like they want them to look. Another similarity I found is that at the end of both plays, both Eliza and Nora realize they are being mistreated, and leave to start a new life. I think another similarity between these two characters is that both of them are looked down upon by society. Eliza is looked down upon because she is just a poor girl who sells flowers, and Nora is looked down upon because she is a woman, and Torvald and the other men in the play think she cannot do anything on her own.


The importance of self-worth or personal response to Pygmalion

“Pygmalion” is a play written by George Bernard Shaw and published in 1913. It is story built on top of Greek myth about a king and a sculptor Pygmalion and his feelings to the statue of his own creation.

The Pygmalion play tells us about a genius phonetics professor Henry Higgins, his comrade Colonel Pickering, a common flowergirl Eliza Doolittle and the bet made by Mr. Higgins with Pickering that in six months he will be able to teach Eliza the phonetics and manners good enough to pass her off as a duchess at an ambassador’s garden party.

A first clear observation about the play, which is also one of the most important aspects of it, is the way how Higgins’ treats Eliza. One might argue that in Pygmalion, Professor Higgins treats Eliza like a property or a dog

“Eliza returns with a pair of large down-at-heel slippers. She places them on the carpet before Higgins, and sits as before without a word.

                                                  Pygmalion, 12th line of Act IV”

While Higgins treats Eliza in a way that one that some might call “less than”, unlike Pickering, it is a part of Higgins’ character. His lack of empathy, poor caring about other people’s feelings and ease on the use of explicit language build the prototype for Higgins’ character, Eliza is not the only one who is poorly treated by him. Mr. Higgins insults random strangers on the street (Act I), “makes faces” at his housekeeper when she tells him off for bad manners behind the breakfast table (Act II) and rushes in his own mother’s room (Act V). He does not think of Eliza as “less than”, he took her on as an experiment, built “a statue” out of her and thinks of her of an equal to him:

“HIGGINS: Of course I do, you little fool. Five minutes ago you were like a millstone round my neck. Now youre a tower of strength: a consort battleship. You and I and Pickering will be three old bachelors together instead of only two men and a silly girl.

                                                                                                                                                                            Pygmalion, End of Act V”

Higgins does not want Eliza to fetch him slippers, nor he wants to fetch her slippers, he wants her to be equal to him.


A second observation about the Pygmalion is not as clear shown in the film version as in the written play. One of the main points that the play tries to show is the change that Higgins has caused to other people, Eliza, and her father. In the Act I, Eliza was presented as a common girl trying to sell flowers and speaking non-clear accent. Her father was an alcoholic dustman, looking and talking accordingly, asking for money from Mr. Higgins and Colonel Pickering. In 6 months (which are shown by the film, but not by the play, which is the reason the change is more noticeable in the written play), Eliza is accompanied by Mr. Higgins and Colonel Pickering to the palace where she passes off as a lady, making Higgins win the bet. Her father return in the Act V as well, showing that he now was a middle-class man, thanks to Mr. Higgins. Yet, both are unhappy about the changes in their life:

“DOOLITTLE: Done to me! Ruined me. Destroyed my happiness. Tied me up and delivered me into the hands of middle class morality.

                                                                                                                                                                Pygmalion, 55th line of Act V”

The unhappiness of Eliza and her father raises questions about the “middle class morality”. These people did not ask for a change, they lived their lives without money or education happily and did not complain, but now they are unhappy, so the change, which is seen for better by the “middle class man” Higgins, is not for the better for them? Do these people actually need a change like this? Are poorer people – happier? If they are – why are they happier? Do they have more freedom? What if they do not understand the privileges that they gain? What if it does not matter to them?


The film script repeats the original play word-per-word, except for some phrases removed and a slight reorder of actions, for instance, in Act III, in the written play Mr. Higgins and Pickering talk to Mrs. Higgins about Eliza after everyone leaves the party, not before Eliza comes in:

“HIGGINS [speaking together] You know, she has the most extraordinary quickness of ear: PICKERING.I assure you, my dear Mrs. Higgins, that girl HIGGINS just like a parrot. I’ve tried her with ever PICKERING.is a genius. She can play the piano quite beautifully. HIGGINS possible sort of sound that a human being can make—PICKERING We have taken her to classical concerts and to music HIGGINS Continental dialects, African dialects, Hottentot PICKERING halls; and its all the same to her: she plays everything…

Pygmalion, End of Act III”

One (two) key differences between the play and the film is the addition of scenes where Higgins teaches Eliza throughout the 6 months that he has, the bathing scene where Eliza is forced to take a bath and the party in the palace, where Higgins passes Eliza off as a lady. These scenes play a crucial part in the perception of the change happening to Eliza and struggles that she has to live though.

<here goes an image, but I’m not sure if we are allowed to add them>

Another important difference is the end. In the written play Higgins asks Eliza to order cheese and buy him a tie in his mother’s house, Eliza denies, but Higgins knows that she still will do it. In the film version, Eliza drives off in a car to her father’s wedding, while Higgins runs out and then goes back to his house in a mood, where he meets Eliza. This is a clearer ending for the viewer, as the original play ending is harder to understand in the rapid pace of the film


Just like “A Doll’s House” the main storyline revolves around a woman and a man, Mrs. Doolittle and Mr. Higgins in the case of “Pygmalion”. However, while in A Doll’s House Nora was treated like a property by her husband, but where Nora was endorsing it at first and realized the immorality in the end, in Pygmalion Eliza feels treated poorly from the start, when she comes to Higgins’ house:

“LIZA [rising and squaring herself determinedly]: I’m going away. He’s off his chump, he is. I dont want no balmies teaching me.

                                                                                                                                                                       Pygmalion, middle of Act II”

Unlike Nora who leaves Torvald, her children and the house, Eliza gets on terms with Higgins and continues to live there with him as an equal to him. She did not change him, she changed herself and by that she achieved respect from Higgins.


In conclusion, while some might argue about Higgins’ bad treatment of Eliza, his way of treating everyone suggests making Eliza not less, but equal to him. Eliza builds up her own character and gain self-worth but does not blame anyone. The play also raises questions important to this day, questioning the happiness of people, neediness of change and their position in society. The script is mostly unchanged relatively to the original play, however it has some scenes added, such as the teaching process through which Eliza goes and the reception by the King and Queen of England. Eliza, as one of the protagonists, may resemble Nora from A Doll’s House, however she does not propagate feminist ideas and shows how she earned the self-respect without blaming the man.




I found that watching the movie helped me to better understand what was going on in the book. It was good to be able to see the setting. Also, seeing the different levels of dress for different classes of people helped to make the storyline stronger. The movie made it easy to imagine what it would have been like if I had been one of the characters. I was able to understand the English dialogue better in the movie as it was sometimes hard to understand in the book.

In both A Doll’s House and Pygmalion, women are looked down upon and not treated very nicely. In Pygmalion, Eliza gets new clothes and learns English properly for free, but generally, the women in both of these plays get looked down upon by the men. Nora gets treated like a doll, and Eliza is not treated very well when she is still selling flowers on the streets as a flower girl. Also in both plays, both women, in the end, make better lives for themselves. Eliza get English lessons to work in a flower shop instead of the side of the road, and Nora leaves Torvald to make a better life for herself. I enjoyed reading A Doll’s House better than I did Pygmalion as it was easier to read and the plot was easier to understand.


Personal Response to Pygmalion

The most notorious difference I found between the film and the book was at the ending. In the book, once Liza leaves, Mr. Higgins simply leaves Mrs. Higgins’s house chuckling and he appears to be satisfied with himself. It feels more like an ending where both main characters end up satisfied. On the other side, in the play from 1938, right after Liza leaves with Freddy, Higgins goes back to his house and accidentally plays a record of Liza speaking. While listening to it, he seems to be sad as if he missed her. I think these are two completely different endings, that make you think differently of Higgins. Another interesting difference is Higgins’ attitude towards everyone. In the book, he tends to be kind and gentle to everyone except Liza, while in the play he looks as if he is too busy to talk to most people. The way he acts makes it look as if no one was worthy of his time. This is an interesting point since, in the play, we could assume that it is just the way he is. However, in the book he is mostly unpleasant only to Liza, which makes it hard to understand the reason behind his behavior. These few things made me come up with a theory. At one point close to the beginning, Mrs. Higgins mentions how Mr. Higgins was never attracted to any lady younger than 45, he states that the reason behind it is that younger women tend to be foolish. Maybe Higgins was trying to make Liza become a smart woman so he could marry her. That is just a thought.

If we compare this play to “A Dolls House”, by Henrik Ibsen, the main similarity is very evident. Someone is controlling a certain individual, and whatever they say, it goes. In the end, that individual realizes how they are being mistreated, and they leave to do whatever they please with their lives. Besides that, I can not spot any other resemblances.

In my opinion, this whole play was about the rich playing around with the lower class. Doing whatever they please since they have nothing better to do. Mr. Higgins and Colonel Pickering made an experiment on a girl and placed a bet based over her performance. At this point, the play felt slightly boring and predictable. Nevertheless, when Liza decided to leave after she realized (or she thought) she was nothing else but an experiment, I realized how good the plot was. In the end, I liked the play because it left some unanswered questions that leave room for debate.


May 15th Independent Reading

The Leaving by Tara Altebrando tells the story of six kids who all went missing on their first day of kindergarten. Eleven years later five of the children Scarlett, Lucas, Kristen, Sarah, and Adam all return back home. None of the children remember where they were, what happened, or who Max is and why he didn’t return with the five of them. The book shows the points of view of the different children and their families as they try to figure out what happened. While talking with a doctor Scarlett starts to realize that she has some memories of her life before she disappeared but not many. When she starts to question it the doctors response left me feeling very confused.

No Way to know for sure, but think about it this way. The majority of people walking around probably have no exact memory of their eighth birthday or tenth birthday or of their ninth Christmas or any of that. Normal people don’t remember everything. Normal people forget. Do normal people ever have just have one memory that is so… very… unrelenting/unavoidable/unfathomable?

(P.  146)

I found this passage interesting because they are constantly using the term “normal people”. I feel like everyone is so different from each other that there really is no “normal” when it comes to people. Especially in situations like the one mentioned because everyone has such different life experiences that we all remember things from different times in our lives and we all have very different amounts of memories.


Pygmalion -Personal Response

From the beginning to the end, Higgins is constantly calling Eliza an object without using the word. I imagine this is the way he was taught. In those times I believe that upper class people had more use, and lower class did not matter as much. She did mention that she does to have feelings too and I think that made him start to realize maybe she is right.

Higgins is the type to have good intentions towards something but being the way he is, it comes off rude or mean. For example giving her that bath in the beginning. To Higgins, Mrs.Pierce helping her bathe, was literally how it sounds. To Eliza, you can tell from her screaming that she thought it was some kind of torture.

Besides small differences between the play and the video, a major one is seeing it for your own eyes. You can imagine what the characters are supposed to look like and how their accent sounds but once you watch the film, you can see the progress Eliza makes just by looking at her turn into a beautiful, mature lady.

To connect “Pygmalion” with “A Dolls House”, I see that there is a sense of doing something with good intentions. Tolvard keeps Nora from eating macaroons so her teeth can stay clean but of course she is a grown woman and should be able to make that decision for herself. In Pygmalion as I mentioned above, he also does things thinking they are for good when really they can be seen as something other than good.


PR to Pygmalion – Eloise

Eliza Doolittle is treated poorly because of her social status. She was never taught how to properly speak or act because her father didn’t know how to either. According to Higgins this made Eliza seem to be a toy, like he could turn her into a game for himself. To Higgins, Eliza does not seem worth his time, in act II he invites her in when she comes to his door.

[brusquely, recognizing her with unconcealed disappointment, and at once, babylike, making an intolerable grievance of it] Why, this is the girl I jotted down last night. Shes no use: Ive got all the records I want of the Lisson Grove lingo; and I’m not going to waste another cylinder on it. [To the girl] Be off with you: I dont want you.  (Act II)

I can almost understand this from his perspective, he was probably taught that people that weren’t as wealthy weren’t as important, therefor he didn’t need to give her a chance. I still think it is a really bad way to view it because her situation is not her fault. However Eliza has a backbone, probably from living how she does selling flowers, and she insists that Higgins hears her out. She acts as well as she knows and expresses what she wants, in a way I would consider quite well for her situation, but at this point Higgins still thinks it is a joke.

Pickering: shall we ask this baggage to sit down or shall we throw her out of the window? (ActII)

Eliza is a frightened by this yet she still stays to talk to him which is very brave considering Higgins and Pickering probably could throw her out the window if they want to. Eliza I think wins over Mrs Higgins as well as Pickering although Higgins view stays the exact same throughout the play. Elizas relationship with Mrs Higgins is is the most surprising to me. Mrs Higgins is surprised when Higgins tells her about Eliza, but after the initial shock, Mrs Higgins treats Eliza most like a person and forms a trusting bond between the two. After Higgins and Eliza get in a fight, Eliza goes to Mrs Higgins who protects her from Higgins.

Do without, I’m afraid, Henry. The girl has a perfect right to leave if she chooses. (Act V)

Eliza is hiding upstairs while Mrs Higgins tries to calm Higgins down, before she tells him that Eliza is upstairs.

When I first started reading pygmalion, I was looking to see how it related to The Dolls House, and I was trying to make a connection between Torvald and Higgins. I do see a slight connection between them but the largest resemblance is between Eliza and Nora. In the Dolls house Nora is trying to be a part of the mens world, managing and making money but she has little knowledge in it. Throughout the play Nora is trying to learn how to save money and pay back Krogstad. While in Pygmalion, Eliza is learning how to act and speak like a lady to have more respect. Both of them are looked down upon, as if they can’t do so, Nora, because she is a women so she is not capable, and Eliza because she is just a flower girl. I feel that a big difference between the two of them is that Nora is trying to learn by herself, because she doesn’t have anyone to help her where as Eliza reaches out for the help she needs in order to be successful.




May 15 IRJE- Andrea

In the novel “You” by Caroline Kepnes, Joe is capable of doing anything for the girl he loves, even if it means murdering someone, he takes control of beck’s life and he secretly removes the obstacles that keep him away from beck. For him, the main obstacle at the beginning is Benji, Beck’s boyfriend who he kidnaps for a long time, until he kills him.

Suspense is good for people. It makes us stronger. This is why America loves Stephen king so much; he keeps us on the edge of our seats until it hurts. (p. 100)

The reason Joe says this, is because he was checking in on Benji, who was still in the cage, where he has him kidnapped, and he is torturing him by making him read books. He was also very jealous of Benji for having a successful business of club soda, so he tortures him by giving him a test on which he had to know the types of club soda, and he says that he does not care whether he had passed or failed the test or if he had escaped from the cage, and that keeping Benji locked away is what gives him suspense in his life.


I Love My Kitten

This children’s book is heartwarming. The author Susan Nicholson writes about a grandma, whose cat is expecting kittens. Her granddaughter Emily is excited and witness Princess Mae’s pregnancy.

“I know that seems like a long time, but it will fly by” (p8)

Grandma conveys that the best things are worth waiting for. How Emily witness the kittens were born made her heart flutter.


May 15th IRJE

Black Boy, written by Richard Wright, tells an account of his childhood. During his youth, Richard gets a job doing chores in a white woman’s house. During his first morning of work, the woman engages in a conversation with Richard.

What grade are you in school? Seventh, ma’am. Then why are you going to school? she asked in surprise. Well, I want to be a writer, I mumbled, unsure of myself; I had not planned to tell her that, but she made me feel so utterly wrong and of no account that I needed to bolster myself. A what? she demanded. A writer, I mumbled. For what? To write stories, I mumbled defensively. You’ll never be a writer, she said. Who on earth put such ideas into your nigger head? (p. 147).

I like this passage because Richard proved the woman wrong and became a successful writer. This shows that you can be whatever you want when you grow up, you just have to put your mind to it.


Justin May 15 DRJ

Candide is about a boy who is kicked out of the castle and is on a journey to survive. The book is story is written by Voltaire and the book is by Peter Constantine. In the beginning things start out slow but eventually begin to pick up pace. Considerably one of the best parts of the book so far takes place In the Land of El Dorado. It is a unreal land with surprising events and mysteries.

They were served four soups, each garnished with two parrots, a boiled condor weighing two hundred pounds, two extremely delicious roasted monkeys, three hundred colibris on one platter and six hundred humming birds on another, exist stews, and delicious pastries. (p. 56)

This quote is interesting because it almost seems impossible to gather this much food of a certain species. It is the only fantasy place in the book and is a lost city of gold. Candide tries to take lamas with gold but unfortunately is unable to make it out with them.


Independent Reading May 1st

The leaving by Tara Altebrando tells the story of 6 kids who went missing on their first day of kindergarten. eleven years later five of the six kids return but no one knows what happened to max the 6th kid who went missing. Some of the parents decide to send their kids to doctors to see what is happening when the kids say they don’t remember anything. At one point Scarlett also begins to question her memories.

When Sashor seemed to be do ne with his questions, she asked,”Do you think it’s possible we’ll start to remember? like in a year or even ten?” Because she didn’t want to find herself, a decade from now, in that Adirondack chair, surrounded by fluffy, raked piles of red and yellow leaves, suddenly remembering the horrors of her lost childhood.

(p. 143)

I found this passage of the book interesting because it was another point where my ideas and theories about what they know changed. I also l found that this quotation shows how this effected the children because they know what happened but they don’t know how it happened which I think I would find very scary if it was me in this situation.



May 1st Independent reading journal

In the Part 1 chapter 5 of Richard Wright’s Black Boy, we can see that the conflict between Richard and Aunt Addie continues after the newspaper error, while Richard gains a better understanding of religion and maintains the same attitudes towards religion. For the part of selling newspaper, Richard feels so ashamed and never sell newspapers when he knows that the newspaper he sells and has never read contained racist propaganda about the Ku Klux Klan against blacks. After that, his Granny is accidentally injured because Richard cuts in on grown-ups and dodges from his Granny. Then, Richard ‘s relationship with His Aunt becomes more tense and he has a greater separation from religion.

Whenever I found religion in my life I found strife, the attempt of one individual or group to rule another in the name of God. The naked will to power seemed always to walk in the wake of a hymn.                                                                                                                                                             (p. 136)

I like this passage because I assert Richard’s further insights and interpretations of religion make a lot of sense. Like he sees that religion is often used to exercise power over people and believes that when God demonstrates its faith, they will only serve their ambitions. All these controversial arguments interest me. In a word, the above statement strongly shows that his feelings towards religion are a struggle-type reaction to his family’s religious enthusiasm. He is also calling on people to establish a link between the masked desire for power and religion.



The Twelve Days of Dash and Lily

The novel is romantic and young. The author Rachel Cohn and David Levithan wrote about reuniting two lovers Dash and Lily. Lily’s grandfather has suffered a heart attack, his difficulty in recovering made Lily hard to keep up the Christmas spirit.

“I try so hard to make you happy. But clearly I can’t. I don’t want to say you’re impossible to please. But you’re impossible to please. And since you can’t stop disappearing, I realized you’re right. We need a break.” (p127)

It conveys Dash’s frustration on trying to help Lily, but she keeps avoiding him. He feels helpless to do anything.


May 1st DRJ

The book Shatterd by Erik Walters tells the story of Ian and sarge who meet through  at a homeless shelter. Sarge is around 40 years old, he is a retired United nations Peace Keeper but is now homeless. Ian keeps Sarge company by visiting him and in return Sarge tells Ian some of his horrific stories. Sarge has a few poor habits that have helped him cope with the stress from the war like drinking, and smoking. Ian helps him realize his problems and helps him to quit.

“Its a two week chip. Its what you get at the treatment centre when you’ve been dry for two weeks” (p. 209)

This quote is important to the book because Sarge was an alcoholic for many years. Ian has successfully helped sarge to quit his drinking habits and rewards him with a two weak chip from the treatment centre. Sarge has never wanted to quit drinking until Ian convinced him that there are other ways to deal with stress


Great literature does not send messages! It raises questions and explores possibilities.