Thinking about my possible choices for the AP exam, I've compiled a list of my favorite/most applicable options:
Medea
Oedipus
Things Fall Apart
Beloved
The Unbearable Lightness of Being
Brave New World
Medea and Oedipus are quite straightforward and easy to talk about. I find myself leaning towards Oedipus because I found it more interesting, so I think I'll end up using that. I really enjoyed reading both Things Fall Apart and Beloved, but I feel using both could be somewhat short-sighted so I think I'll stick with just Things Fall Apart. My biggest dilemma is having to choose between The Unbearable Lightness of Being and Brave New World. Both were my absolute favorite novels to read this year, but thinking in terms of the AP exam I find that Unbearable Lightness of Being would probably prove a more interesting essay than Brave New World. Then again, I find myself more familiar and able to write about Brave New World than I would for Unbearable Lightness of Being. Fate v. Free Will seems to be the overall theme for the majority of these novels. Although, I could talk about dangers of acquiring totalitarianism and losing truth and beauty within Brave New World. I could also discuss the effects of change on tradition within Things Fall Apart. Regardless, I hope I'm heading in the right direction with my choices. Which novels have you all considered/chosen?
I LOVE crazy conspiracy theories. This is the first crazy conspiracy theory I've read about my most beloved series Harry Potter. This guy basically took Harry's prophecy and turned into something completely different. And it's really not even that farfetched. He essentially gave a whole new meaning to The Boy Who Lived.
I read this article and was telling Mrs. Quinet about it, so I decided to post it. The article is really informative about why leggings should or shouldn't be allowed in school and whose "fault" it is. Read it and post what you think about it!
I'm having a difficult time figuring out why Karenin is named after the Anna Karenina Karenin, besides that fact that Tereza was carrying that novel under her arm when she went to see Tomas. Other than that, there really are not any parallels between to the two- and I don't mean in the obvious way that one is a dog and one is a human.
For instance, after reading the last part of The Unbearable Lightness of Being and Anna Karenina, I actually see both Karenins is somewhat opposite situations. In Anna Karenina, Karenin, Anna's much older husband, is this robot-like, unemotional, but also highly respected government official. Realizing she doesn't really have feelings for her husband, Anna ends up having an affair with Count Vronsky. However, towards the end of The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Tereza considers that possibility that she may love Karenin more than Tomas.
Needless to say, if there is some deeper meaning to the Karenin thing, I'm missing it.
After WWII and during the buildup to the Cold War, the Soviet Union effectively controlled the entirety of Eastern Europe (including Czechoslovakia) which the Allies had conceded to it because Soviet Union bore the brunt of the European theater of the war. In 1955, these countries' status as satellite states was effectively made formal by the Warsaw Pact. Even without the Warsaw Pact, the Soviet Union was itself a federation of extremely diverse, semi-autonomous states like Ukraine, Belarus, and Armenia around the core Russian territory (hence the "friendly states around our friendly states around our friendly states" cartoon). It was a major political and propaganda challenge for the Soviet Union to maintain control over all of these completely different groups. Moscow's generally successful approach was to create a controlled sense of nationalism among these groups and identify it with the Soviet Union.
A major facet of the Soviet government's propaganda was classical music; many works that remain in the standard classical repertoire, like Shostakovich's Leningrad Symphony (which the LPO performed a few weeks ago) were originally sponsored by the Soviet government. These works generally fall within the Soviet Constructivist style, emphasizing a sense of collective heroism over recognizable melodies or subtle emotional impact. Several composers, including Shostakovich and Prokofiev, had to walk a fine line between satisfying the communist government and exploring a personal style. An exceptional case, however, is Aram Khachaturian, who used a style highly independent of constructivism while running into little trouble with the government. His style is nationalistically Armenian, using folk melodies, complex and exotic rhythms, and nationalist subject matter. Listen, for example, to his Toccata in Eb Minor, which is a favorite among pianists for the showiness of the piece, the relative ease of playing it, and the fact that it is fun both to play and listen to:
The piece's rapid pace, eccentric harmonies, and compelling rhythm are all completely characteristic of Khachaturian. This nationalist, blatantly emotional style was tolerated because it was entirely apolitical; it could be taken as a celebration of the Soviet Union's diversity without suggesting any sort of independence. In retrospect, though, it was rather dangerous for the Soviet authorities to flirt with allowing nationalism to develop, as movements like the Czech Spring were fueled by nationalism, which was in that case furthered by classical music.
I don't know if this is common knowledge already, but it's news to me. The Giver has been made into a movie and it's coming out this year. As if that isn't exciting enough. Meryl Streep is in it. Watch the trailer. It looks intense. It made me want to reread the novel, so I am.
This news got me thinking about this recurring appearance of dystopias in literature and film recently. I don't know if it's just me, but they seem to be everywhere right now, especially in young adult novels. Divergent, The Hunger Games, Among the Hidden, Never Let Me Go, The Maze Runner- just to name of few. And then there's the classics- 1984, The Handmaid's Tale, Brave New World. I'm not complaining. I always love them.
