The Hungry Woman Cherrie Moraga Pdf Viewer
Jason and Medea by (1907) In some versions, Medea was said to have dismembered her brother's body and scattered his parts on an island, knowing her father would stop to retrieve them for proper burial; in other versions, it was himself who pursued them and was killed by Jason. During the fight,, a member of the group helping Jason in his quest for the fleece, was seriously wounded, but Medea healed her. According to some versions, [ ] Medea and Jason stopped on her aunt 's island so that she could be cleansed after murdering her brother, relieving her of blame for the deed. On the way back to, Medea prophesied that, the helmsman of Jason's ship, the, would one day rule over all.
The Hungry Woman Cherrie Moraga Pdf Merge The Welder by Cherrie Moraga I Am What I Am by Rosario Morales. The Hungry Woman Cherrie Moraga Pdf Viewer. Allman Brothers Band Collection Pdf Viewer 5,6/10 4994 reviews. Allman Brothers Band Collection Pdf Creator. The Hungry Woman Cherrie Moraga Pdf Printer.
This came true through, a descendant of Euphemus'. The Argo then reached the island of, guarded by the bronze man, (Talus). Talos had one vein which went from his neck to his ankle, bound shut by a single bronze nail. According to Apollodorus, Talos was slain either when Medea drove him mad with drugs, deceived him that she would make him immortal by removing the nail, or was killed by 's arrow (Apollodorus 1.140). In the, Medea hypnotized him from the Argo, driving him mad so that he dislodged the nail, flowed from the wound, and he bled to death (Argonautica 4.1638).
After Talos died, the Argo landed. Jason, celebrating his return with the Golden Fleece, noted that his father was too aged and infirm to participate in the celebrations. Medea withdrew the blood from Aeson's body, infused it with certain herbs, and returned it to his veins, invigorating him, the daughters of king saw this and wanted the same service for their father. While Jason searched for the Golden Fleece,, who was still angry at Pelias, conspired to make Jason fall in love with Medea, whom Hera hoped would kill Pelias. When Jason and Medea returned to Iolcus, Pelias still refused to give up his throne, so Medea conspired to have Pelias' own daughters kill him, she told them she could turn an old ram into a young ram by cutting up the old ram and boiling it in magic herbs. During her demonstration, a live, young ram jumped out of the pot. Excited, the girls cut their father into pieces and threw him into a pot.
Having killed Pelias, Jason and Medea fled to. With Jason Medea had five sons,,, Tisander,, and a daughter,, although, writing in 1870, records that various sources state that they had between one and 14 children. They were married happily for 10 years in Corinth. Various versions' endings [ ]. Medea About to Murder Her Children by (1862) In Euripides’ play Medea she is a woman scorned, rejected by her husband Jason and seeking revenge. Deborah Boedeker writes about different images and symbolism used in Euripides’ play to invoke responses from his original Athenian audience, the Nurse gives descriptions of Medea in the prologue, highlighting comparisons to great forces of nature and different animals. There are also many nautical references throughout the play either used by other characters when describing Medea or by Medea herself.
By including these references, Boedeker argues that these comparisons were used to create connections to the type of woman Medea was, she holds great power (referred to by the comparisons to forces of nature), she relies on her basic animal-like instincts and emotions (connections to different animals like bulls and lions), and it draws the audience back her original myth of Jason’s quest for the Golden Fleece and the sea voyage taken by Jason, Medea, and the Argonauts. Cases In Financial Reporting 7th Edition Engel Coolers. Emma Griffiths also adds to the analysis of Medea’s character in Euripides’s play by discussing the male/female dichotomy created by Euripides.
Medea does not fit into the mold of a “normal woman” according to Athenian philosophy, she is depicted of having great intelligence and skill, something typically viewed as a masculine trait by Euripides’ original audience. On the other hand, she uses that cunning in order to manipulate the men around her, and manipulation of other people would have been a negative female trait to the Athenian audience.
There is also the paradox of how she chooses to murder her victims in the play, she poisons the princess, which would have been seen as a feminine way of murder, yet kills her children in cold blood, which is seen as more masculine. She also has dialogue about her children and shows a strong maternal love and connection to them, something that was essential to “normal women” in Athenian society. Yet at the end of the play she is able to kill her children as part of her revenge, it is through these opposites that Euripides creates a complicated character for his protagonist. Although not the first depiction of Medea, the Argonautica by Apollonios Rhodios gives a fuller description of events that lead up to Euripides’s play, mainly surrounding Jason’s quest for the Golden Fleece; in this literary work, Medea is presented not as a powerful woman seeking justice rather she is a young woman who is desperately in love with Jason. So much in love that she decides to defy her father and kill her brother in order to help him. Clauss writes about this version of Medea, attempting to unearth another version of this character for scholarship and discussion, he looks into different passages in the original text to define the meaning and draw connection to the different feelings Medea was going through. He argues the feelings of Medea’s initial love for Jason, the shame she feels for loving him and for going against her family, and final agreement to help Jason in his quest.
Multiple scholars have discussed Medea’s use as a “helper maiden” to Jason’s quest. A helper maid is typically personified as a young woman who helps on a hero’s quest usually out of love. Instead of being the center of the story like she is in Euripides’ Medea, this version of Medea is reduced to a supporting role, her main purpose is to help the hero with his quest.
Jason would never have been successful on his quest without Medea’s help, something that is pointed out and referenced many times in ancient texts and contemporary scholarly work. Other, non-literary traditions guided the vase-painters, and a localized, presence of Medea was propitiated with unrecorded emotional overtones at Corinth, at the sanctuary devoted to her slain children, or locally venerated elsewhere as a foundress of cities. Cultural depictions of Medea [ ].
The detailed illustrations of the decadent scenes in Monsieur Venus seem to be vividly translated between French and English. The language used in our edition seems as poetic as I imagine the passages would be in the original French.
As with any work in translation, however, there are certain aspects of Rachilde’s story that cannot be explored as thoroughly in our language as in the original. In Monsieur Venus, the subtle alterations of the French pronouns (particularly “tu” and “vous”) do not carry over into our English copies. Luckily for us, the thorough footnotes in Melanie Hawthorne’s translation of the novel give her readers some insight to the thematic significance of the pronouns used throughout the text. The pronouns begin flipping between the formal and informal “you” in Chapter Three. In this chapter, the reader witnesses Raoule fighting with herself to figure out how to shape her relationship with Jacques. As she pulls aside the curtain to reveal him bathing, she cries “Child, do you know that you are marvelous?” (42), and uses the “tu” form for the first time. This is appropriate, as noted by the footnote, considering that she is addressing him as a child, but it is even more so interesting that Raoule continues to address Jacques in this informal register for the remainder of the chapter.
The language she uses degrades Jacques status and serves as a reminder that the characters are of very different social classes, which relates to their status within their intimate relationship as well. Raoule is able to dominate Jacques because plays the power-hungry masculine role in their intimate relationship and also holds more social power in their public relations. The “you” pronoun is later used to characterize Raoule and Raittolbe as members of a higher social class when they respectfully address each other in the “vous” form in Chapter Four, which Hawthorne notes is a stark contrast to the relationship between Raoule and Jacques. Jacques would not dare use the “tu” form with Raoule throughout the beginning of the book and all the way until the end of Chapter Four. This is significant because Rachilde develops a complex relationship triangle between the characters of Raoule, Raittolbe, and Jacques, and the “you” form reveals the variations of class and levels of intimacy between the three characters.
In Chapter Six, the simple “tu” pronoun is extremely significant because the informality with which Raoule addresses Jacques in front of Raittolbe unintentionally indicates to Raittolbe that the other two characters are sexually intimate. There are many other examples of “tu” and “vous” indicating the transgression of class lines and degrees of intimacy throughout the novel. Just to mention a few more significant passages, at the end of Chapter Nine during Raittolbe’s moment of homosexual panic, he insults Jacques as a “scoundrel” using the “tu” form. This word choice emphasizes Raittolbe’s ability to degrade the value of Jacque’s social status due to his belonging to a higher class. In Chapter 10, Marie reveals that she has an intimate relationship with Raittolbe by addressing him in the “tu” form, which is also significant since she belongs to the same class as her brother, Jacques, yet can use this informal register to address someone from a higher class. In Chapter 14, Raoule’s aunt distances herself from Raoule by addressing the character in the “vous” form instead of the more familial, informal way.
Also, throughout the duel scene near the end of the story, Raittolbe and Raoule alternate between using the “tu” and the “vous” forms to emphasize the variations between their personal relationship and their relationship to their society as indicated by social class. In all of these examples, Rachilde manipulates the second person pronoun to indicate more than just which character dialogue is targeted towards. The pronoun indicates degrees of intimacy, respect, and status. The extent to which the meaning of “you” alters throughout the book nearly makes it feel like a homophone/homograph. The variations of the pronoun are easily recognizable in the French edition, but without the footnotes would be devoid of meaning in the English translation.
This is somewhat worrisome because the variation of the pronouns in Rachilde’s story serves as a useful strategy to develop the theme of transgressing not only gender lines, but also social classes in Monseiur Venus. If we are to lose the nuanced tension between characters that is so integral to the central themes of the story in our translation, what else might be lacking in a translated addition? What is the significance of pronouns in our own language—how does English similarly indicate boundaries of social class through the connotation of common words? How deliberate was Rachilde’s decision to flip back and forth between the “tu” and “vous” forms? What is the significance of grammatical and connotative discrepancies with any work in translation? While I don’t think any of these questions are easily answered, they are interesting and important inquiries to consider. In any case, while we may not have been able to read Monseir Venus in the original French, our class is lucky to have had access to such deliberate footnotes that help to uncover what would have otherwise been lost in translation.
A materialist novel. The subtitle to this story might seem unnecessary yet it explains some of the motivations of the characters. My experience reading left me unsatisfied because I could not connect with the characters in the novel. I kept wondering how someone who claimed to love another person so dearly could behave in such a hideous way towards that person. Then I realized it is because this novel is not about the love which these two people say they are experiencing, it is about the physicality of the love, the physical material that is driving this emotion. Raoulle throughout the entire book claims she loves Jacques. She explains to Raittolbe that she is not a woman in love with a woman but a man in love with a man.
She again explains to him that she always loves without resisting. He claims that this is in fact love.
Basic Concepts Of Chemistry Malone Pdf To Jpg. Yet, love as so many other stories have taught us would not have ones lover killed out of jealousy. The love that Rachilde is presenting us with, however, is not an emotional love; it is a love of the physical and material. Similarly, Jacques shows love for the physical and not necessarily the emotional.
‘“Raoule,’ cried Jacques, his face convulsed his teeth biting into his lips, his arms extended as if he had just been crucified in a spasm of pleasure. ‘Raoule, you just aren’t a man! You just can’t be a man!’ And the sob of illusion, forever dead, rose from his sides to his throat. For Raoule had undone her white silk waistcoat and, in order to feel the beating of Jacques heart better she had pressed one of her naked breasts against him” (pg 183). In this scene we see that Jacques in fact desires the physicality of this relationship more than the emotional side of it. While Raoule can “act like a man” and Jacque “behave like a woman”, the reason this relationship cannot be entirely fulfilled is because of the emphasis on the material. Neither Jacques nor Raoule value the emotional nearly as much and thus the relationship is doomed to fail at least in its current state.
At the end of the novel, however, we see a Raoule, which might in fact be happier with the final arrangement than she was during the time Jacque was alive. She gets to enjoy the physicality of this relationship the thing that she in fact loved. She actually acknowledged this during one of her interactions with her aunt. Raoule states after her aunt curses her “Dear Aunt, happiness becomes more real the more it’s insane.
If Jacques doesn’t waken from the sensual sleep that I’ve insinuated in his obedient limbs, I’ll be happy despite your curse”(pg 175). While in the end she did mourn for a short period we can extrapolate that she was happy with the outcome of her relationship. She was able to have a very obedient and dead Jacques to serve her own pleasure, her own physical, material pleasure.
In fact, while she was not able to ever become a “full man” due to the lack of a material penis, she was able to make Jacques a “complete woman”. She was able to keep her object of desire and pleasure without having to share it with anyone.
This shows us that this novel is actually not preoccupied with the emotional definition of love but the material and physical forms of love. Rachilde thus presents us with characters whose emotions the reader cannot connect with because the emotion is not the aim the feelings are the not the aim.
The physical is what is important. -Basil Hallward. “I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free.” – Michelangelo We started off Wednesday’s class with a discussion of society’s fascination with transgender sexuality today and why we thought this fixation exists. I decided to take a broader approach by examining what we see as “human” and why we are sometimes uncomfortable with individuals who don’t conform to our standards of what it means to be human. To begin, I decided to look at society’s historical fascination with creating or recreating life. Prometheus Bound By Christian Schussele, 1824-1879 The concept of creating life from living or non-living materials first appeared in the stories of Greek mythology dating back to early history of mankind, i.e.
The story of Prometheus, and such stories may be considered the first reports presenting the idea that independent life can be generated without sexual reproduction. The Biblical tale of Eve’s emergence from Adam’s rib is a further example of this concept. As humans grew to understand nature more and more, they imagined the artificial generation of living specimens via biological or chemical techniques.
These ideas that circulated through society eventually gave rise to literary works such as Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s Faust completed in 1831 and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein published in 1818 (interestingly subtitled The Modern Prometheus). One of the central themes in Faust’s struggle to become all-powerful is the deep desire to create life through various artificial processes, namely alchemy, while Shelley’s novel describes a creature made of reassembled body parts that is brought to life. What is it that makes us uncomfortable about the changing or recreating of what is “natural”? A conversation at the hairdressers about dying one’s hair doesn’t evoke the same reaction as a debate about organ regeneration and the prolonging human life to an indeterminate point. Taking synthesized drugs to relieve oneself of cold systems doesn’t evoke the same reaction as announcing one’s gender reassignment surgery. What is it about such acts that either makes us turn away without batting an eye or makes us uncomfortable? Perhaps it lays in the permanence of the changes.
Artificial hair color is only temporary and one can always revert to one’s natural color. Advil relieves suffering and nurses one back to an original healthy state. However, long-lasting or permanent changes to the natural body grab our attention and make us think. Is there any justification in imposing lasting modifications to our bodies? Let us consider two cases: organ regeneration and gender reassignment. One of the main aspects of organ and tissue regeneration that makes society uneasy is the potential to extend the human lifespan to an indeterminate amount of time. Some would regard this extension of lifespan to be artificial and not human, which forces us to consider what it means to be human in the first place.
Through the course of human history spanning across several different cultures, mortality and an innate sense of dignity seem to be defining features of our humanity. Death is as much a part of humanity as life – a fact that is supported by the wide variety of burial rites and funeral services unique to each religion or culture. To extend the average human life expectancy towards an undefined limit through constant regeneration of the cells would not only cause problems with regards to population density, it would redefine humanity; mortality would no longer be a definitive feature of human life. Furthermore, extending the human lifespan towards a hypothetically unlimited amount of time could blur the line between a hubristic quest for immortality and genuinely compassionate healthcare.
The natural human life is finite and to extend it towards infinity would be to tamper with a quality reserved for gods. However, if the purpose of organ regeneration technology is seen as relieving the suffering of people and not necessarily granting virtual immortality, the idea becomes a lot more appealing to the general masses. Can the same “concessions” be made for gender reassignment and other acts associated with transgender sexuality? If gender reassignment surgeries are seen less as cosmetic procedures and more as procedures to relieve the suffering of people, would that make them more acceptable?
It still seems to be a large leap for society to make due to a fascination with people’s presentations of gender and sex – both qualities which we associate with humanity. Perhaps what makes transgender sexuality an uncomfortable idea for some is the ambiguity of the individuals who do not conform to society’s view of gender and sexuality as binaries. Such an ambiguity can be seen as monstrous and deviating from the norms and standards of what it means to be human. Like Frankenstein and Faust, trans* people are seen as dabbling with a power that should not be left to human control: the creation or modification of natural life.
This offers another interpretation of the typical decadent theme of the union of the sacred and the profane; life the way God intended is sacred and any attempt to change or recreate it is profane. However, the transformations of Raoule and Jacques – or any transgender individuals for that matter – can also be seen as a chipping away of the marble to reveal the natural form of the sculpture already existing within the stone. Monsieur Venus–Is this feminist?! During class, the question of “Is Monsieur Venus feminist/progressive/queer?” was brought up and it reminded me of the following blog: The blog parodies the often hypercritical environment of feminism in academia. Before I begin my own criticism of Monsieur Venus and how it’s not feminist, I wanted to note that while my criticism of the novel below is harsh, I thoroughly enjoyed reading the novel, as a novel. I believe that the text is best understood as entertainment, and should not be appropriated as some radical feminist or queer agenda or ideology. I believe that Monsieur Venus is not feminist/queer for three main reasons: the novel relies more on the gender binary than it challenges it, the novel is written in a voyeuristic manner which fuels the excitement/appeal of the story, and the story stigmatizes gender-nonconforming individuals.
1) The novel relies more on the gender binary than it challenges it Monsiuer Venus could easily be read as a progressive message on gender and sexuality because of the gender-bending protagonist, Raoule. However, gender-bending alone is not inherently progressive. Furthermore, while Rachilde certainly challenges gender norms, she ultimately perpetuates them. For example, in the following passage: “A strange life began for Raoule de Venerande, starting with the fatal moment when Jacques Silvert gave up his power as a man in love and become her thing, a sort of lifeless object who let himself be loved, because his own love was powerless. For Jacques loved Raoule with a real woman’s heart.
He loved her out of gratitude, out of submission, out of a latent desire for unknown pleasures” (pg. 92-93) Rachilde draws a nexus between “power” and “masculinity” and “submission” and “femininity.” In other words, she uses masculinity as a synonym for power and femininity as a synonym for powerlessness. This passage suggests that in every relationship, the more masculine individual has power over the more feminine individual. Thus, even though Raole is biologically female but is effectively the “male” in the relationship, this gender-bending is far from progressive and actually is just reinforcing and perpetuating unfortunate societal understandings of gender. 2) The novel is written in a voyeuristic manner which fuels the excitement/appeal of the novel Monsiuer Venus is such a fascinating and engaging read because it titillates our enjoyment of voyeurism, scopophilia and fetishism. Rachilde’s use of the third person perspective amplifies the voyeuristic nature of the novel by encouraging the reader to look onto the characters as some spectacle. If Rachilde has used a different point of view that let the viewer see from the perspective of say, Raoule, I think the novel would have been more feminist because this would allow the reader to engage and empathize with Raoule rather than simply watch her.
Furthermore, like Marie Silvert listening through the hole between her wall and her brother’s, we are privy to the private relationship between Raoule and Jacques in a voyeuristic manner because of the nature of the relationship. For the majority of the novel, Raoule and Jacques only exist together when in private.
That is, their relationship is mostly private and “behind closed doors.” By making the relationship so private, Rachilde seems to insinuate that the relationship is in some way “wrong” or “unacceptable.” Also, making the reader privy to this secretive relationship titillates their curiosity in a way that fetishizes Raoule and Jacques and depicts their relationship as more of a guilty spectacle than a legitimately intimate one. 3) The story stigmatizes gender-nonconforming individuals While reading Monsiuer Venus, I was reminded of the villain in The Silence of the Lambs. The film received a huge amount of criticism from the trans and queer community for villainizing and pathologizing people with non-conforming gender identities and presentations. In the Silence of the Lambs, the murderer/villain is a cross-dresser who kills women to construct a “woman suit” in order to make himself a woman. Similarly, Rachilde villainies Raoule by making the reader fear her.
The very preface of the novel, “We warn our readers that at the very moment they are cutting these first pages, the heroine of our story is perhaps going past their front door,” explicitly depicts Raoule as someone to be feared. This warning is solidified at the end of the novel when Raoule essentially murders Jacques, defiles his corpse, and has sex with it. This unfortunate depiction of someone who does does not conform to their biological gender invites the reader to see these people as disturbed, dangerous, and disgusting. Thus, despite any apparent challenges of gender throughout the novel, ultimately the reader is left with a disturbing image of Raoule that stigmatizes gender-nonconforming individuals.