Gangs of New York

In this movie it’s a fight to the death between the immigrants and the ‘natives’ [so they call themselves, but we all know our history about the true natives of America]. Leonardo Decaprio plays the character Amsterdam Vallon. When he’s a kid he watches his father be killed by Bill ‘the butcher’ in a battle in New York. When his father is killed Amsterdam is sent to an orphanage, but it is obvious that he does not become very religious [seeing that he tossed away his bible as soon as he walked out of that place]. He returns to Five Points, where the battle where his father died took place; and he meets a man named Johnny who recognizes Amsterdam as the ‘priest’s son’. While touring through Five Points, they meet a thief named Jenny [who steals Johnny’s watch].

It seems that Bill started ‘running the place’ after Amsterdam’s father died. He’s helping to put someone in office [probably so he can influence him], and throws a celebration for the killing of ‘the Priest’ every year. It turns out that Johnny also works for Bill, and Amsterdam is sort of brought into the business. He helps to rob a boat, but it seems that someone beat them to the punch; but Amsterdam suggests to take one of the bodies on the ship to sell it. This is the way he enters Bill’s good graces.

Of course this eventually all goes sour when Bill finds out who Amsterdam really is. Amsterdam sort or replaces his father in that he starts to lead the Irish. He arranges for a battle [like the one in the past] with Bill. In the battle Amsterdam avenges his father by killing Bill, and he lives happily ever after with Jenny.

 

A very good movie,definitely something I will watch again in the future. Some relevant questions that relate to our class is:

1. The fight between the Natives and the Rabbits was for the control of Five Points. The Natives didn’t like the Irish ‘taking over’. Were the Rabbits just fighting for their place in the Five Points, or for what would be their future home?

2. It is evident that the Irish like to fight together and work together to gain their place in Five Points. At this time however, there were many immigrants in New York; so why did the Irish only work with the Irish and not the Italians, or any one else to ‘gain their place’? Is it because being Irish gives you a sense of unity, seeing that it was once your home?

 

Brooklyn

The scenes on the boat in Brooklyn really contrast to the images given about the boat rides in Star of the Sea. The boat ride described in Brooklyn seemed almost like a regular boat ride, while the one in Star of the Sea was literally like torture.

As for our protagonist, I do seem to have some qualms with her. I usually try to relate in some form or fashion to the main character, but Eilis is really difficult to understand. Sometimes she upsets me because she acts quite opposite then the way I believe that she should act. For example, why is she letting her emotions go with her to the workplace? She was aware from the moment that she left Ireland that she wouldn’t see her family. She should focus on doing a good job and not disrupting a work day. Cry at home, and focus when at work. I also did not like the way she handled being moved to the basement. Reading her thoughts on ‘is this really best for me’ and ‘are they just saying that because they’re jealous of my new room’ was a little irritating for me as a reader. Since she can’t really do anything since she is being forced to the basement, then there is no point in fretting about what others will think or why she is being put down there to begin with. There’s no point in being rude to the lady putting her there either. I’m not saying that it is wrong to question motives, but I feel that you should only do that when you can actually do something [like prevent being moved to the basement]. She was going to be moved down there whether she liked it or not, so might as well just go.

My favorite part of the novel so far has been when Eilis got a backbone and spoke back to one of the tenants in the house about letting black people shop in the store where Eilis works. When she said the tenant wore old cardigans and had ladder stockings, it was evident that Eilis is growing up. She would have never said anything like that if she was like the old Eilis. I guess she’s learning a thing or two in Brooklyn.

Portrait of an Artist- His mother as Home

When I think about home, the first thing that comes to mind is my mother. Reading through the Portrait of an Artist, it is interesting to see Steven’s relationship with his mother. Their relationship seems to slowly degenerate.

We start the book with Steven actually caring about his mother being unhappy [when he sees her cry when he is leaving for the first time to school], then we end the novel with him making his mother unhappy by telling her that he will never ‘repent’ or be religious.

His mother is not really mentioned throughout the novel that much. She is mostly mentioned through the eyes of Steven, so it is interesting to see his thoughts directly on his mother.

There is one instance when bullies at school question Steven’s relationship with his mother. They ask him if he kisses her. Steven initially replies yes, but quickly changes his answer to no when he realizes that the bullies start laughing at him. I feel that it is in this part of the story that Steven begins to distance himself from his mother. He didn’t think that it was bad to kiss his mother at this point, but he leaves this exchange with his classmates wondering why humans kiss at all.

Another instance where Steven is seen with his mother is when he discusses how he doesn’t want to go to Easter Service. Now, I have to say, it is not uncommon for teenagers to not want to go to church because ‘it’s too early’ or ‘they don’t want to get dressed’. Steven is different however, in that he has decided to reject religion at this point.

Religion is closely related to his mother. As Steven begins to reject religion, he also begins to slowly reject his mother.

 

 

A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man

Beginning the novel ‘a portrait of the artist as a young man’ was interesting. The way the novel is written is a little confusing. At the beginning of the first chapter, everything is written like in thought form. One minute he’s discussing his father telling him a story, then he’s wetting the bed. And then all of a sudden his Uncle Charles and Dante come into the story; it is like ewe are seeing random facts about this character, or literally his thoughts.

When the other boys begin to pick on the main character Stephen, it was upsetting but entertaining. Seeing Stephen’s response that his father was ‘a gentleman’ made me think, ‘you tell him!’. It’s upsetting to read a little boy picking on another little boy for his father not being a ‘magistrate’. That’s crazy.

An interesting point in the first chapter was the part with the badges with the red and white roses. Seeing that Stephen wishes to get a green rose, showed me that our main character is either different or weird. He must think very differently than those people he is surrounded by. Like an outsider, because these are odd thoughts to be having as a kid. If this was a movie, Stephen would be that kid that was misunderstood. Because the title of the whole novel indicates that he’s going to grow up to be an artist, it makes this story more interesting. Many artist think differently than the average Joe, and it is intriguing to see what goes on in the head of an artist. [Especially as a child.]

In the first chapter a topic that arose was religion. It seems that religion is a shared topic between our novels. I assume that religion will play a bigger role somewhere in the novel. Stephen’s view on religion so far is interesting. He does believe himself a Catholic, but apparently has no problems with Protestants. This means that our character is open-minded which will probably get him into trouble later in the novel. It will be fun to see how the story unfolds later….

Thoughts over the Presentations for Star of the Sea

Watching our classmates present their book covers and blurbs was interesting. It was nice seeing how others approached the same project that my group was given. My favorite book cover would have to be the very last group’s book cover. [The one with the gravestone and the red writing] Of course, to be objective while choosing, I am excluding our own book cover [but we all know our book cover was awesome as well]. As a side note, I am sort of curious what kind of book covers the other class generated for this project.

A topic that was brought up after the very last presentation was the subject of transitions. The moment I heard the two arguments presented in class, I knew what I wanted to talk about in my blog. One of my fellow classmates made the statement, “the best transitions are the ones that go unnoticed”. When I heard that, I thought, “hmm, that’s food for thought”. What kind of transitions are the best?

I can see where my classmate was going with his thought. During regular everyday conversations between a group of three or more persons, when the speaker changes it is sort of smooth as each person picks up on the last thought of the previous speaker.

However, I have to say I agree with my group member Jarrod’s viewpoint that you should not pretend that the audience won’t notice a change in the speaker. In professional presentations, there are usually more than one speaker in each presentation. So what do they usually do?

Well, they usually take the time to introduce the next speaker; however, in this example there is usually a keynote speaker who everyone is basically waiting to hear. [Like the President or something, so maybe this comparison is not fair]

I think for group presentations like the ones we did in class, it is important not to overdo introductions; that way it is sort of smooth as a classmate picks up where someone left off. But you should not completely ignore transitions, because it is a presentation and not a regular everyday conversation with friends. Like Dr. Miles said, transitions in presentations are important; just like when writing papers.

The Different Aspects of Communication

An important aspect of communication mentioned in the readings is being aware of the different signals that you send as you communicate. WOVEN or Written Oral Visual Electronic Nonverbal, includes all the different things that a presenter or communicator should consider when presenting something. Simply knowing the material, going in front of a group and presenting is not enough anymore. Looking presentable, making sure to keep weird mannerisms in check, and having a good visual are other things that should be considered. A good point on this that was mentioned in the readings was about how everyone learns differently. I myself am more of a visual kind of person. If a teacher shows a picture while lecturing, it gives my mind something to pinpoint the information I am receiving with. Considering the different kinds of learners in an audience would probably make a presentation more effective.

The readings also mentioned that knowing the audience and context is important, and I agree. If everyone sent out texts in the same kind of writing that they would use for a textbook, it would be inappropriate. [It, however, would probably be even more inappropriate to write a textbook in the same manner that a person would write a text.]

A special point in the reading that I would like to discuss is the theory by “Benjamin Whorf, who speculated that language determines the way [people] think”. That was definitely food for thought. I’m with the people who think that his theory is too extreme. It’s hard to think that someone who knows Chinese for example, is predetermined by their language to think differently than a Russian speaker. I would say that perhaps cultures help to determine the way people think. Some people are raised to think that women are more superior than men. [I didn’t wish to go with the cliche of a man thinking he is superior to a woman, so bear with me here.] That’s inscribed in the culture, not the language. However, a good friend of mine, Jonathan, argued that language is a part of a person’s culture; so perhaps Whorf has a point.

The last thing that the readings touched on was self-reflection. For obvious reasons, reflecting is good and encouraged. For example, reflecting on a past presentation is helpful in improving future presentations.

Looking at all these things that a person should consider to be a good communicator feels overwhelming. I guess that’s the price to pay if you want to reach out correctly to widespread audiences. [Side Note: Reading these tips on being a good communicator is making me go back through my blog and question, “am I being too casual? This is for an English assignment if you think about it; but then again a blog is a reflection and is therefore more personal.” Guess that’s more food for thought.

Mary Duane Versus Pius Mulvey

In Star of the Sea, two characters really stood out to me. The first is Pius Mulvey. At first, I thought he was a real misunderstood character; they kept calling him a monster and then you find out that he’s being blackmailed into killing Merridith. Then all of a sudden, Mulvey is evil; having already killed two people [one even being a really, good friend of his]. You could say that he has two personalities. One moment he loves Mary Duane, the next he is running for the hills so that he doesn’t have to starve with her. Then all of a sudden he’s back again to torture Mary Duane because she married his brother. By the end of the novel, I really did not like Mulvey; and I thought that he deserved what was coming to him for being so evil. Okay he killed his friend so that he would have a way to survive [but I would argue that he did not HAVE to kill William Swales; no one knew that he stole William’s identity. Why couldn’t he just create an identity? Not like anyone could really check to see if he was telling the truth.] And as for the second murder, let’s just say that it was only done for him to escape. But why did he have to torture his brother? His brother only stepped in to marry Mary because Pius failed as a father. I think that was the defining moment when  I realized that Pius really is a bad person.

The second character that caught my attention was Mary Duane. In the epilogue the author makes it clear that he did not have much information from Mary’s point of view; that in the book she really was defined only by her relationships with the rest of the characters. I explained my views on Mary in my last post pretty clearly [Click here if you want to see that]. However, there are some really important things that happen to her near the end of the novel; like the argument Mary has with Pius in the room. It is evident through that chapter that Mary does not like Pius, with all the yelling and with the not forgiving him. But then all of a sudden, at the end of the book, she saves him! When I saw that it was up to Mary to decide if he was going to get into the boat or not, I thought, ‘Oh he’s doomed. There’s no way she’s letting that guy in’. Then all of a sudden, she says that he is her brother-in-law [some brother-in-law right?]. When I read that scene my jaw literally dropped. It hit me that Mary really had to overcome two things to let him into the boat. First, she had to scrape for an ounce of pity or forgiveness. [Which is difficult, him being the indirect reason for her husband and child being dead and all.] Now let us say she is able to forgive or pity him; then she has to actually admit that she’s related to a person like him. Okay, it is one thing to forgive someone. But to then have to say, “Yes, he’s my family”, is way too much to handle. As a side note, after reading that scene I had to stop to question myself: Did Mary do the right thing? Would I have done the same?

Okay well, we all know forgiveness is the right thing to do; even pity in any case is acceptable and highly encouraged. But I have to say, I would have rather taken the man who wanted to see his children. If she left Mulvey, there was nothing saying that he was surely going to die. Merridith was dead, the deed was done. He only had to survive going through customs. [Of course, there is no guarantee that the people blackmailing him weren’t going to kill him just for the sake of killing him.] I have to admire Mary though, for her courage to do what is right.

As for Pius Mulvey, he did get what was coming for him. Not even a year later he was found stabbed to death and disfigured. I think karma really got him. It really left a sour thought though. I don’t think his crimes equated to all that his killers did to him. [Come on, they cut out his heart while he was still alive! That’s way too much. He was a murderer and all, but he didn’t torture his victims like that.]

I wish I knew what happened to Mary in the end. What became of her? Did she ever get married again? Did she get her happily ever after? Or did she live the rest of her life being tortured by men? Guess we’ll never know.

Mary Duane, an abused character?

One of the most interesting characters in Star of the Sea is Mary Duane. I feel bad for Mary, but also think that she carries some of the blame for the things that happen to her.

For example, why did Mary sleep with Merridith when they were younger? Okay, some might say, ‘Oh it was love’. But in reality, a sensible person would have considered making sure that their relationship could work out before going anywhere with him. Mary knows that Merridith is of a higher class; why does she just assume that his dad would be okay with their relationship? Although Merridith carries much of the blame for their failing relationship, Mary should have at least tried to think it through. Lucky for Mary [well some would say this isn’t really much luck], she is able to get away from that relationship baby free [who knows if Merridith would have taken responsibility if she had gotten pregnant].

Later we find that Mary also had relations with Pius Mulvey. Pius called it love, although I have my doubts. For some reason I believe that the only person who Mary ever really loved was Merridith when they were kids. This being said, Mary did not make sure that Pius would stick around before even being with him. Did she not learn anything from her relationship with Merridith? It’s like Mary always steps out on a limp before even checking to see if it is safe. This time around though, Mary was unlucky enough to be pregnant and alone.

By the time a responsible man came through, Mary was already pregnant; but lucky for her, that responsible man Nicolas, wanted to take care of her and her baby in Pius Mulvey’s stead. [Of course he only did this because Pius was his brother, but it was noble nonetheless.] The book mentions that Pius Mulvey’s baby is stillborn, so Mary married Nicolas in vain in the end. But from my standpoint, it was sort of lucky thing that the baby dies; because now she can sort of start fresh with Nicolas. She won’t have to worry about telling the baby that its father [Pius Mulvey] abandoned it. Nor does Nicolas have to be a stand-in father anymore.

This luck of course runs short when Pius comes back, and makes Mary’s and Nicolas’ life a nightmare. And I must say that I do blame Pius for Nicolas’ and his baby’s death; although Pius was not the one who literally killed them, he basically put the weapon in Nicolas’ hand by taking away his land and cow.

Going back to Mary now, let us recap. She at the end is able to get something close to a happily ever after, but evil Pius takes that away from her. I guess that Mary is meant to be alone and abused by all the other characters. Although if she thinks about it, she’s lucky that she found a way out of Ireland and found a way to survive. Mary truly is a tough character. No matter what happens to her, she continues to press forward.

Fictitious or Factual?

A part of the novel that webbed some fiction into facts is the letter that Merridith writes to his sister. It is safe to say that most of what he describes is fiction with only a hint of truth. He did go visit their parents’ grave, but the graves did not have fresh flowers; his father’s tombstone had been sabotaged [probably by former tenants]. Even when detailing his current trip, some fibs are spawned. Like when he says that he and his family is enjoying ‘roughing it out’.  I hardly believe that Merridith is having a good time on his voyage with that foul smell on board and that urinary infection. It is interesting however, how each of his lies really do have some truth to them: Merridith did visit his parents’ graves [I will give him that], and he does have to ‘rough it out’ on his trip. But there are only very small truths in his letter.

It makes me wonder as a reader if Dixon has done something similar with this entire novel. I ponder if what I’m reading even happened. Like how would Dixon know that Mulvey used to steal? [Or that he even enjoyed it?] As far as I know Dixon is riding in first class and doesn’t exactly know Mulvey.  But I guess none of this matters as long as the message [whatever it may be] is put across clearly; being artistic is not bound only to expressing the truth, but also to incorporate a sense of creativity as well [as Dixon is told by his editor]. I don’t believe there is a responsibility to stick to reality. The only responsibility Dixon has is to convey the pain and misery that he watches others go through. If a few minor details have to be altered to express this, then so be it. If people want actual facts, go get a textbook. A novel gives room for free expression.

Mulvey also learns about free expression when he wakes up from his dream and writes his ballad; realizing that changing some of the lines would make it better. But as he changes them, he begins to venture off from the facts of what truly happened with the sergeant and his brother. “The facts did not matter, that was the secret”, Mulvey says. I think he means that the expression of the feelings in that moment values more than what actually happened. Just telling an entertaining story or singing a good song should be the priority.

Pius Mulvey, a murderer?

Pius Mulvey is an interesting character in the novel, ‘Star of the Sea’. The fact that he is so mysterious at the beginning of the novel makes the reader wonder what kind of person he really is. On the first page of the preface of Joseph O’ Connor’s novel, Pius is described as being “disfigured with scars”. He is given this ugly appearance and apparently has some weird social skills. He avoids the women and he sleeps during the day to stay clear of the men. Not that he has no social skills; it is clear [later in the book] that he can hold a decent conversation with the captain. [Of course he does this just to find a way to get closer to Merridith, his future victim]. And this is the point that I wish to discuss, why does Mulvey have to murder Merridith?

Okay, Pius Mulvey has to kill the noble Lord Kingscourt in the name of the poor Irishmen. Let’s look deeper at this shall we? So supposedly Mulvey doesn’t even want to kill Merridith, he is being forced to by some men who have threaten to kill him if he should fail. When I heard this, the first thought that came to my mind was, “Wait a minute; if this group of Irishmen really want Lord Kingscourt dead, why don’t they do it themselves? They already have people who are willing to kill Mulvey for failing. Just tell those same people to kill Merridith. I am sure they would enjoy it more than Mulvey anyways.”

Well, it is apparent that there is going to be no explanation for the reason why those Irishmen decided to come up with this particular ‘diabolical’ plan. So the next step is to look at it from Mulvey’s point of view, what should he do in this situation? Well, if I was Mulvey I would look at it in two ways: If he kills Merridith, there is going to be consequences [presumably death; probably by hanging]. Come on, there’s no way that he is going to walk away scot-free after just killing a man. If he does not kill Merridith he might get killed by those people who are threatening him. That is, if those ‘poor’ Irishmen were even able to afford to get someone on the ship to see the dirty deed done. Personally, I’d take my chances with the ‘poor’ Irishmen. He already has a bad foot, so it will be difficult to get away after killing Merridith anyways. Maybe he can convince whoever is watching him to kill Merridith instead of him. [Very unlikely though, he probably wouldn’t be able to get a word out. I imagine them jumping him without giving him a chance to explain.]  He should just hope that there is no one really watching him and that it is all a bluff.

Guess we will have to wait and see what Mulvey is going to do. Does he have what it takes to be a killer? That is what I want to know.