7 Matching Annotations
  1. Mar 2019
    1. Indeed, she focuses on her daily patterns so intently that she fails to recognize the existential and subtle forms of chaos that are disrupting the sense of order she’s supposedly imposing upon the household; she simply continues her routines despite the fact that they no longer support any kind of true stability.

      This reminds me of Chronicle of a Death Foretold! In both, the characters are blinded by their obligations and thus fail to realise that in order to maintain honour/organisation, they commit acts that ironically further the opposite. By ignoring these 'subtle forms of chaos', she is allowing them to fester and continue.

    1. Rather, her supposedly kind words mainly have to do with herself, and then she toasts to Stanley “because it’s his birthday.”

      In addition to the theme of 'isolation, freedom, and independence', this could also be tied to the theme of 'order, chaos, and sanity'. Meg cares less about reality and more about having the chance to adhere to the routine of gift giving on birthdays, which come around once every year (a perfect example of an established pattern).

    1. Stanley eventually does fall from innocence

      'Innocence'? To say that Stanley '[falls] from innocence' assumes that he was innocent in the first place. While I do agree that he does become unhinged and broken by the end, I don't think I would agree that he was innocent.

    1. What’s more, even his name changes depending on the story he’s telling. Although he introduces himself as Nat, he refers to himself as Simey when telling stories about his mother or his late wife, and in one instance he calls himself Benny. He even gives McCann a different name in a conversation in the play’s final act. “Anyway, Dermot’s with [Stanley] at the moment,” Goldberg says (referring to McCann), and when Petey says, “Dermot?” he merely replies, “Yes.” Shortly thereafter, Petey takes Goldberg’s lead and also calls McCann “Dermot,” but Goldberg says, “Who?”

      (Fun Fact: I wrote a Padlet post titled 'ooh na na what's my name?' with Rihanna's 'What's My Name' linked at the top. Here it is again!)

      These constantly shifting identities makes the past extremely ambiguous and confusing, especially because the characters themselves seem to be confused. How could McCann and Goldberg, who are supposedly working this ‘job’ together, not know each other’s first names? Or do they actually have multiple names, and is there a story / reason behind each one? First, Goldberg mentions that only his wife and mum (two women we have not seen and remain in his ambiguous past) call him 'Simey'. Second, he switches to 'Seamus' instead of 'Dermot' when speaking 'gently' to McCann. Third, he gets very agitated (and even 'murderous'!) when McCann uses the name 'Simey'. But why does he react so violently? Is it because McCann was the one to call him ‘Simey’? He didn’t seem to have a problem with telling the others that his wife and mum used to call him ‘Simey’, so his reaction to McCann using it is extremely strange. In addition to that, whenever he brings up the fact that they used to call him ‘Simey’ instead of ‘Nat’, he brings up the story of him coming home to something on the table. The fact that these stories and the way in which they are told are nearly identical makes it seem as though these are just stories that he made up for show; however, his violent reaction still confuzzles me.

    2. In this way, he encourages the audience to simply experience each moment on an emotional level

      Hmmm... what do they mean by 'emotional'? What kind of emotions? Later it is rephrased so the phrase 'visceral response' is brought up, but I'm not really sure if I agree that the audience's response is on an 'emotional level'. Or maybe it was just me that didn't have an emotional response...

      :(

    3. And yet, nobody in the play seems to notice or care about these fluctuations. Rather, the play simply moves on as if these details are arbitrary

      Yes! Even though the characters do take note of these inconsistencies and question those that tell them, they don't take action or become suspicious.