Blood Wedding Journal 3

Comparison: A writer usually attempts to create a bond of trust between writer and reader. How and to what extent have at least two writers you have studied been able to elicit your trust?

For "Blood Wedding," the writer elicited my trust through the character of "mother." She is so worried about her son because she already lost her husband and her other son. She doesn't want to lose her last son to a marriage to a girl she doesn't even know. She has her suspicions. I can understand how mother would be worried and that made me begin to wonder if her son's choice was a good one or not. I can relate to mother's worries, so I trust her.

For "Wild Duck," the writer elicits my trust by the character of Hedvig. She is a nice girl who really loves her dad and is always excited to see him. She gets so excited to see her dad - I can relate to it because I remember how excited I was to see my dad when I was young. She wants to do her best to please her dad, she loves him so much. The reader trusts her because of her innocence.

Blood Wedding Journal 2

Comparison: Readers are attracted to moments of intensity in a writer's work. By what means and with what effect have writers in your study offered heightened emotional moments designed to arrest the reader's attention?

Writers offer heightened emotional moments designed to arrest the reader's attention by using arguments and intense conversations. In Blood Wedding, one example of this is when the bridegroom is talking to the bride at the wedding in a conversation:
Bridegroom: But your father would have embraced you more gently.
Bride:(Gloomily) Of course.
(The bridegroom hugs her tightly, in a brusque manner)
Bridegroom: Because he is old!
Bride: (dryly) Let me go.
(p.70)

In this conversation, the bridegroom is talking to the bride. He does not notice the edge in the tone of the bride. He is oblivious to it. All brides should be happy at their weddings and she is not doing a very good job hiding her anger. This conversation catches the readers attention because the reader is frustrated that the bridegroom does not notice the bride's attitude very well.

In Oedipus, an intense conversation/argument is also used to catch the reader's attention:

Oedipus: So, you won't talk willingly - then you'll talk with pain.
The guards seize the shepherd.
Shepherd: No, dear god, don't torture an old man!
Oedipus: Twist his arms back, quickly!
Shepherd: God help us, why?- what more do you need to know?
Oedipus: Did you give him that child? He's asking.

Here the shepherd is resisting Oedipus and is not answering his question. This captures the readers attention - the reader knows that the shepherd did not kill the child when he should have, but Oedipus does not know that. It makes the reader want to see what Oedipus's reaction will be to what the shepherd says.

Blood Wedding Journal 1

Creative: reactions to specific situations by characters

Maid: I'm bursting to see the presents!
Bride: (Harshly) Get away!
Maid: Oh, child, show them to me!
Bride: I don't want to.
Maid: At least the stockings! They say they're all lace! Please!
Bride: I said no!
Maid: For heaven's sake! All right. You're acting like you don't want to get married.
Bride: (Biting her hand in rage) Oh!

So this part was really confusing to me. The bride seemed fine earlier but not she is angry and weird. When the maid thought she was acting like she didn't want to get married, the bride reacted by "biting her hand in rage" which could mean she was angry because the maid guessed correctly. Her behavior was so odd here - she is a completely different person than when she was in front of mother. I can understand mother's suspicions. I hope the bride does not act that way during her marriage. How can she cover up her ill behavior so well and act like she loves bridegroom?

Wild Duck Journal 4

Comparison: "Not rounding off, but opening out. Comment upon the way the writers deal with the ending in relation to the whole. In your answer you should refer to two or three of the works you have studied.

The plays "Wild Duck" and "Oedipus" both have an ending that opens out and doesn't round off. By this I mean the ending is not abrupt and like an endpoint, but open to more events; the beginning of the end, you could call it.

With "Oedipus," Oedipus ends up blinding himself in the end; he does not end his life and kill himself but he only blinds himself. This leaves the story open to more events and it could possibly have a future. He lives on through the tragedies that have happened.

The same goes for "Wild Duck." The main character does not kill himself; he goes through a tragedy and lives on. He could possibly still say with Gina. They will grieve over the loss of their daughter. The story does not just end with Hjalmar leaving, but he stays. The ending opens out and does not round off and completely finish.

Ibsen Wild Duck Journal 3

Comparison: "What is drama but life with the dull bits cut out?" To what extent do you find this statement applicable in at least two plays you have studied?

This statement is very applicable in "Oedipus" and "Wild Duck. In "Oedipus," the play is about the time period in which Oedipus finds out that he married his mother and killed his father. This play covers all of his life that is relevant to the story, but with "the dull bits cut out." It does not tell his whole entire life story; just the significant and dramatic parts like how he was given away to be killed but he was not actually killed, and the part about how he killed his father. So it is essentially his life but with the dull bits cut out.
It is the same with "Wild Duck." It is just about the lives of people in the Werle and Ekdal; but all the "dull bits [are] cut out." It is about how Hjalmar finds out that his wife had an affair with Werle many years back. This play includes all the drama of the story and does not contain any "dull bits" of life.

Ibsen Wild Duck Journal 2

A dramatist often creates a gap between what the audience knows and what the characters know. With reference to at least two plays, discuss how and to what effect dramatists have used this technique.

In "Oedipus," the shepherd is the character who knows most of the story. Oedipus is blind to it until the last minute, as Jocasta is, but she learns what happened a bit sooner than Oedipus realizes it. The audience knows everything however. The characters have the limited knowledge, especially Oedipus.
In "Wild Duck," Gregers Werle and Old Werle know the whole story. The audience knows that they know the whole story because in Act Three, it says:
"Gregers: I'm planning to open Hjalmar Ekdal's eyes, He's going to see his situation just as it is - that's all."
This hints that there is something the audience does not know. So in this play, the audience is left out until near the end. Also, Gina might know what is going on. This is because she gets nervous and weird around Gregers Werle and Old Werle. Her discomfort hints that something has gone on between them in the past.

Ibsen Wild Duck Journal 1

"Visual action can be as important on the stage as speech." How far do you agree with this claim? In your answer you should refer to two or three plays you have studied.

I agree with this claim. Visual action can be as important on the stage as speech. Take for example Jocasta in "Oedipus." The stage directions create an image of what the characters should be doing, and without the directions it would be very confusing. Here is an example of stage directions of Jocasta: "Flinging through the palace doors. A long, tense silence follows." These directions give a dramatic effect to the text which wouldn't be created without these directions.
Another example of the importance of stage directions/visual action is in "Wild Duck" by Ibsen. "Ekdal and Hjalmar have gone to the back wall to push aside the two halves of the double door; Hedvig helps her grandfather, while Gregers remains standing by the sofa and Gina sits, imperturbly sewing." Without all these visual actions written, it would be unclear what each person should be doing. The directions are a vital part of plays.