Task: Use the passage identified OR choose your own passage from Act 1 Scene 1 to examine. Annotate the passage and write a concise a commentary on the passage. Use literary features to support your response.
Steps:
17 Comments
Kaori
3/5/2019 13:23:20
In this passage, Paulina expresses her bitter disbelief with the Commission that promises to investigate "only the most serious cases" of human rights violations. Her resentful attitude towards the Commission is conveyed with the playwright's overt use of question marks, as he creates a accusatory tone in Paulina's speech. When she asks Gerardo, after his silence, "you hear the relatives of the victims, you denounce the crimes, what happens to the criminals?", Paulina is not simply asking him questions, but taboo questions that expose the insincerity of the Commission. Here, the commas make Paulina's speech sound clipped, and the succession of short phrases speeds it up; effectively communicating Paulina's contempt for the Commission that she believes will not bring proper justice as she pushes Gerardo to answer her difficult questions. Paulina's act of "laugh[ing] softly but with increasing hysteria" whilst asking if "Judge Peralta, who told that poor woman who had come to ask for her missing husband that the man had probably grown tired of her and run off with some other" is "a judge? A judge?" also expresses her disbelief at the simplicity of the Commission. The juxtaposition between the gravity of Paulina's speech and her amused delivery that escalates to "hysteria" belittles the atrocities and the Commission, expressing her bitter disbelief at the government's poor attempt to provide justice to the victims.
Reply
Ms Post
3/5/2019 14:42:38
Great commentary, Kaori. Thanks for your insights. You've used some great vocabulary here to communicate your ideas. Strong ideas.
Reply
Michelle
3/5/2019 19:54:45
Passage :
Reply
Ms Post
3/6/2019 08:43:48
Thanks, Michelle. Great focus on their dysfunctional relationships. There are a lot of parallels here to Helmer and Nora!
Reply
Aitor
3/5/2019 21:28:33
GERARDO: Everything. Everything we can. We’ll go as far as we… (Pause.) As we’re…
Reply
Ms Post
3/6/2019 08:46:37
Thanks, Aitor. Great focus on the optimism of Gerardo in a relatively difficult situation. He isn't all bad, and I think you are right to acknowledge that he is working in an unstable situation. Good emphasis on context here.
Reply
Ayano
3/5/2019 23:57:09
Passage:
Reply
Ms Post
3/6/2019 08:52:31
Great work, Ayano. I like that you focused on the duality of the light here and how it is utilized in different ways for the characters. Gerardo certainly is searching for the light, or the truth.
Reply
Kohsei Yashiro
3/6/2019 00:36:36
In this dialogue, we can see a clear dichotomy between Gerardo and Paulina as Gerardo attempts to pacify Paulina as he is aware of the lack of power the Rettig Commission has, while Paulina is more emotional as she is one of the victims not acknowledged by the government. We can see Gerardo’s attempt in pacifying Paulia where he repeats the word “everything” to imbue a sense of security within Paulina. However, the use of ellipses and the “(pause)” display Gerardo’s awareness that “everything” is not really “everything.” That the commission is not really solving the issue comprehensively. Gerardo attempts to pacify her by saying “so much we can do” and listing some of the things the commission is doing. However, this pacification by Gerardo does not work as Paulina displays her noticeable anger towards the commission. The use of the definitive such as “never” and the repetition of “judge” creates an accusatory tone which critique the shallowness of the commission. Not only does the preponderance of the rhetorical question display Paulina’s ridicule towards the commission, it also poses the reader with the question of justice in these situations.This dialogue reveals the everlasting tension in Chile and the omnipresent and growing pessimism in the victims to seek justice.
Reply
Ms Post
3/11/2019 08:43:07
I like how you describe Gerardo as attempting to pacify Paulina. This word means 'bringing peace', which is exactly what Gerardo is trying to do within the country. However, by not acknowledging the victims who are alive, can the country really move on? Gerardo really is the voice of the new government as he attempts to pacify his country and his wife.
Reply
Lisa
3/6/2019 08:50:00
In this passage Paulina and Gerardo are distrustful of the judges on the Chilean court.
Reply
Ms Post
3/11/2019 08:39:26
Great observations about the representative nature of these two characters. Bring your ideas about sexism into the next couple of classes; we will see it play a much bigger role as we read on.
Reply
Leonie
3/6/2019 09:00:04
Passage: Act 1 Scene 1 (p. 10)
Reply
Satoki
3/11/2019 07:40:35
Passage: Act 1 Scene 1 (p. 10)
Reply
Kent
3/11/2019 10:58:19
- Paulina's interruption in Gerardo's dialogue is indicative of her resistance towards his plans. Her straightforward attitude toward wanting to expose the crimes that truly need recognition. Gerardo's speech contains hesitant characteristics such as ellipses and pauses.
Reply
Anda
3/12/2019 17:42:30
Passage: Act 1 Scene 1 (p. 10)
Reply
Lisa
3/13/2019 09:08:27
Franz Schubert’s String Quartet No. 14 is in D minor and is a slow song hence the name Death and the Maiden. Schubert composed this song based on a poem by Matthias Claudius, which is about a young maiden pleading Death to leave her, but Death coax her towards his.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |