My Reflection on *The Sound and the Fury* (IR)

   

        So, I recently finished reading The Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner. I will now write about all of my thoughts on this very unique text.
        Let me just say, reading through pure stream-of-consciousness writing is a very, very, very hard thing to do. The first passage of four is written entirely in it. The second passage is still mostly stream-of-consciousness with a few sensible pieces, the third even less confusing, with the final passage leaving out stream-of-consciousness writing all together. In a way, the reader gets the hardest part out of the way first - quite a relief. I have to say, though, I honestly don't think I've read anything as confusing as this book in my life. The way the stories read in choppy sentences or fragments, and the way the scenes jump around so much - even through different times. Yes, I'm sure you have all experienced time gaps in books but for the most part, it is easy to see when your character is in a different time period - a few months have passed, years, whatever. Well, in The Sound and the Fury, the exact day or year can be impossibly hard to find at parts - especially in the first part of the novel. I was completely confused for the first fifty pages with all of these off-topic things jumping into the text and the character would suddenly be in a different place than before. I then thankfully realized that the character had been having flashbacks with the use of italics. So all I had to do was look for the main story-line in the paragraphs without italics, right? Yeah, I wish it had been that easy. In fact, that was my first thought. Unfortunately, if the flashback was long enough, it would be written without italics, switching the main story-line's view with the flashbacks altogether. Let's just say, it was extremely confusing.
        Not that I have anything against Faulkner's writing style, I just find it hard to read. In fact, I found certain parts of this book (namely part one) harder to interpret than Shakespeare - and that's saying something. It's written in a completely different tone than Shakespeare's writing, of course - much less "formal" - but that does not change the fact that it is truly confusing.
         Although I found most of this story terribly difficult to read there were a few parts I, as the reader could actually understand. Those parts were a relief. There was one section in part two like that, when one of the main characters - Quentin - was trying to help this little girl find her home. The writing for that scene was very straight-forward, unlike a lot of the book itself.
         Okay, I know it's hard to explain just how interesting the writing of this book is. Here's a short passage from part two:

 "A face reproachful an odor of camphor and of tears a voice weeping steadily and softly beyond the twilit door the twilight-colored smell of honeysuckle. Bringing empty trunks down the attic stairs they sounded like coffins French Lick. Found not death at the salt lick" (Faulkner 95).

        That quote is written word for word - I didn't leave anything out or change a thing. Notice the sting of separate thoughts mending together and the mysterious lack of normal punctuation? This is an extreme example - one of Quentin's flash backs. But you get the idea now right? It was by no means an easy read.
        Surprisingly, however, the characters were developed wonderfully - despite the hard-to-interpret writing itself. As readers, we got to know Benjy - the mentally disabled narrator of part one, Quentin,- brother to Benjy as well as Jason, who fights with himself over his feelings towards his sister Caddy as he envelops part two, Jason - the strict leader of part three and hard-headed uncle of Miss Quentin, as well as other important characters. They all have a purpose in the story - each one has a meaning.
        I find it perplexing that a book so very confusing can have such great character development. It's one of the mysterious things I discovered on my adventure reading this novel. Although it's definitely not one of my favorite books (honestly, you will have to bribe me with tickets to a really good musical if you ever want me to read that book again), but I am glad I read it. While it wasn't a particularly fun experience for me, I can now say I have read a book written mostly in stream-of-consciousness. Knowing that may never happen again, I'm glad I was able to explore an area of writing such as this. Though had to interpret, I found the way Faulkner wrote so unique and unlike anything I had ever read before. As we learned at the beginning of the year, originality is hard to find. By reading something unlike anything I have read before, I can start to feel that calm sense of originality. Seeing something so unique is really quite fascinating.
        So there you have it - my experience with The Sound and the Fury. Well, out with the old, and in with the new. Time to read another book, and have a whole new adventure.

Actors and their Amazing Capability to Act (IR)

        So, it's been a while since I've blogged about acting. It's one of my many hobbies and I can't help being interested. So, yesterday I auditioned for our school's fall play, "A Haunting We Will Go". I've always absolutely loved auditions for plays and musicals because you get to read the lines for all sorts of characters so that the directors have a good idea of your capability to act. So, in all of the plays I've been in, I've ended up being cast as the innocent and good character. Since people have only seen me act in those happy-go-lucky roles, no one has ever really seen me act in a villainous role. Of course, I'm not saying I would be a good fit for a villainous role (Ha! During the auditions for "The Wizard of Oz" in  10th grade they had me read for the witch at on point... It was quite an interesting experience), just that it is possible for even me to act villainous in certain roles.
         The point is, this got me thinking about just how amazing true actors can really be. I mean think about it - some actors can play the most pure, innocent characters as well as the most evil, lunatic and annoying characters. It all depends on perspective. I found this article online called "13 Actors Who Can Play Any Role". It has a list of some actors and actresses who do indeed have a huge range of acting experience - actors such as Natalie Portman, Johnny Depp (I don't see how he couldn't be on this list), Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Tom Hanks, and many more. Of course, these are only a sliver of the amazing actors out there. Someone who I personally would add to this list is Anne Hathaway. From a humble daughter in Ella Enchanted, to a troubled mother (with a powerful voice) in Les Miserables, to a full-on villain in The Dark Night Rises, Anne Hathaway can play a huge variety of roles, performing each part with a certain air that is unique to her and her alone. Some actors truly have an amazing capability to act. And that is something that I admire greatly in them.
        Actors and actresses also tend to have a knack for memorizing lines. This is something that intrigues me immensely about acting. When your director hands you a 200-page packet script for a play that you decide you will learn in a week, some may think it impossible, and so may you. That is until you sit down for hours on end and come back a week later fully prepared to put down your script and start spouting lines ("Wizard of Oz" anyone?). Memorization abilities just come to people in a real variety of ways. Some people can literally look at a paragraph for fifteen minutes and then exclaim the words flawlessly a moment later.
        By the way, I've also been reading into my most recent unit of AP Psychology quite a bit, so I may start ranting about memorization from here on out. You see, there are all sorts of ways to memorize things, and people just have to find what's right for them. Personally, I am a true visual learner. I memorize lines in plays and such by looking at a phrase, covering it, and repeating the phrase aloud (or in my head if there are people around). Then, I read the next phrase, cover it along with the first phrase, and recite both phrases until it comes naturally. I then continue to repeat this process over and over again throughout whatever it is I am memorizing until I can say it all correctly and in the right order. This is why I absolutely hate it when I am talking to another actor in a play and they change the words around so that it is not exactly as it is written. Normally, a mistake like this will pass off as nothing, but sometimes it doesn't work out so well. Like in "Seussical the Musical", a musical that is made up entirely of rhymes. Once when I was performing in this play, another actor said their lines too quickly, before I could finish my own, therefore causing the rhyme scheme to fluctuate, announcing quite brightly to the audience that there had been a mistake. Yeah, I don't like it when people stray from the script.
        Not all actors are visual actors. A lot of them are audio learners. One time, one of my friends who is into acting was in a play with me outside of school. She was having trouble memorizing lines so I decided to help her. Long story short, we discovered that she was by no means a visual learner, but an audio learner. She was able to learn her lines by following my method of phrasing memorization, except with me reading each phrase aloud to her and then having her recite the lines until flawless. Once you find your ideal method of memorization, the hardest lines to memorize can become possible again.
        So, the point of the matter is, actors have an amazing capability to act. Whether they be a well-known professional or a down-to-earth newbie, acting sure takes a lot of hard work and confidence to express yourself openly to the world. And it looks like my long rant has come to an end. Until the next time! ;)

Here is the link to "13 Actors Who Can Play Any Role":

http://screen.answers.com/movies/13-actors-who-can-play-any-role

The Rising Age of Technology (FW)

        To start things off, I just got a new computer. My old computer unfortunately stopped working in the spring very suddenly and I knew it was time for me to get a new one. However, I survived the summer need for internet with an iPad mini (which I used to read one of my summer reading books online as an eBook rather than reading it from the library, as it was more convenient, although reading books online really hurts your eyes...) and the use of my mom's work computer that she has at the house during the summer. Without either of those things, I would have had issues with completing my summer homework as well as staying in the loop of all of the things going on within my email account - rehearsals, festivals, contacting coworkers, etc. Good thing I had some way to connect to the internet before I got my new computer, right?
        Well, this got me thinking - our lives are becoming so dependent on technology nowadays, aren't they? I mean, think about it. For instance, take a look at schools. Every year schools become more and more reliant on online papers and work. It's easier to keep track of and there's a much lower risk of losing an important paper of some sort. At Black River we use email, Google docs, online videos for certain lessons, and so much more. Even at this very moment, I'm using technology to do my homework blogging. And that's not half of it. Some schools actually distribute laptops or iPads to their students for all of their work throughout the year. It really does make things easier - not having to write out essay after essay, easy storage, being able to share work as well as save important documents from getting lost, and much more.
        Even things like the news are more often watched or read from TVs or computers rather than the newspaper itself. Hordes of people do their shopping and banking online, not to mention social websites like Facebook and Twitter. Computers, tablets, phones, TVs - you name it. These things are a huge part of our lives whether we acknowledge it or not.
        This leads me to the question of the future world of technology. If these things are such a huge part of our daily lives already, what will happen once even newer technology is created? This is a growing, changing world and it advances from one minute to the next. In the past, technology was not nearly as big of a concern. People hand wrote letters instead of using email accounts, gathered together in place of Skype, and got to know each other in person rather than online. I'm not saying that this means technology is a bad thing, I'm just saying that it's a big change. It has its pros and cons. While using this much technology is super efficient and helpful, does it take away from our common life experiences? It's up to you to decide. Everyone has different priorities in life, so there's no right or wrong answer.
        Technology. It's quite a big concept, isn't it? A world of unimaginable openness to new ideas and designs. People are always creating, always thinking up new ideas for the electronic world. It allows our society to keep on advancing and adapting to new ways of doing things. Though it can sometimes frustrate us (like when the internet connection to your computer just won't seem to fix itself), technology really does help us accomplish our daily goals. Without it, the world would not be as complex as it has become. I'm not entirely sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but what I do know is that technology has helped us come a long way - for better or for worse.