My Experience with Public Speaking

It is certainly understandable how some people feel a certain amount of fear or apprehension when approaching public speaking. I do believe that everyone feels some of this anxiety, but, like everything,I have found it to be something which gets better overtime.

The first experience I had with public speaking/speech making was when I ran for vice president of my school in fourth grade. This required a speech given to the student body and teachers. Overall, it was a positive first experience which I again repeated the following year when I ran for president. Since then, I have had a pretty substantial amount of experience on stage as an actor in various plays. Although performing is not really “public speaking” it still produced the same butterflies that precede public speaking. Additionally, as a jazz trumpet player, I would often take several solos during a performance which could be quite nerve wracking as well. This is also not public speaking, but I think the attention being placed so squarely on you is what makes something like public speaking or performance so scary.

One of the best things anyone has ever told me about speaking publicly is that the scariest part is the second before you go on. If you can get past that moment, all the rest is easy. This idea helps you get on the stage, and thinking about it while there helps to keep you going; knowing that the worst is already over makes everything else seem easier.

Sui Sin Far Presentation

Sui Sin Far was a writer born under the name Edith Maud Eaton to a Chinese mother and English Father. Leaves from the Mental Portfolio of an Eurasian is an autobiographical essay that Far wrote describing many of the events of her life and the discrimination she faced as an Eurasian. This essay was written in 1890 and published in 1909.

For my presentation, I focused on the text in terms of its historical moment. Before I get into that, however, I just would like to point out that this is a text written by a woman in the late 19th century and, therefore, I’m sure on the test you would be able to read this text through a feminist theoretical lens and connect it to other texts in that way. Additionally, in terms of genre, this is an autobiographical work as well as being an essay which could set it apart from other works. Just some food for thought if you would like to use the text in a different way from how I will be discussing it.

So, I wanted to begin by pointing out that something a bit obvious if you have read the text, yet essential for understanding it: there was a lot of discrimination towards Chinese immigrants in the United States during the late 19th century into the 20th century. As a result, there was a significant effect on Chinese immigrants and, for our purposes, on Chinese-American and Eurasian writers during this time. It is this discrimination that Far mostly focuses on in her essay.

At many points in Far’s essay she explains that as a result of her English ancestry, she did not appear to be Chinese. This brought attention to the idea of “passing” as someone of a different race in order to avoid discrimination. She had the capability to “pass” as someone with no Asian ancestry and calls attention to others who were urged to “pass” as Japanese instead of Chinese in order to avoid discrimination.

An interesting result of this is that Far was actually encouraged to brand her nationality by her editors. They believed that her embracing her Chinese heritage would make her more interesting and would make her writing sell better. An example of this can be seen on the bottom of page 122 onto page 123 of Far’s essay. Here, Far is encouraged to embrace many Chinese stereotypes. In some ways, this branding was resisted as seen in many of the events described in her essay, but according to Martha Cutter’s essay, Sui Sin Far’s Letters to Charles Lummis: Contextualizing Publication Practices for the Asian American Subject at the Turn of the Century, some influence can be seen when letters between her and her editors are read. As professor Tougaw pointed out in an email to me, even the changing of her name could be seen as an example of this branding while also combating stereotypes and discrimination.

One of the reasons I believe this text is on our list is because Far struggles against many of the limitations placed on her by the time in which she was writing. In her essay she recalls one experience on pages 117-118 where her boss is saying many racist and derogatory things towards Chinese people, not realizing that Far is Chinese. When asking her why she is so quiet, Far has a moment of conflict not knowing whether to stand up for herself or quietly avoid the uncomfortable situation. In the end, she does stand up for herself. It is important to note that in uncomfortable situations she does not pass by unnoticed, but recognized her nationality. This is not for branding purposes. It should be remembered that she recognizes her nationality when it is beneficial to do so and when it is not. In regards to this, Cutter writes about Far’s authorship in her essay. She points out the significance of a woman of this time standing up to her editors, friends, and fellow literary people in writing as the person she is despite the social ramifications.

To sum up, I believe this is not a text that we will be able to use by itself on the test, but it is good to use with something else. There is a lot of flexibility with this text in terms of theory as well as genre as I have already pointed out. I think, above anything else, this text could be used to boost an essay you are writing primarily about a different text.

Preliminary Exam Plans

My plans below are in no way complete, nor are they definitely what I am doing on test day, but its a start. Okay, here we go:


Historical Context:

Right now, I am leaning towards using A Midsummer Night’s Dream and The Importance of Being Earnest for my historical context section. Both texts deal with mistaken identity while being works of drama and being confined to social norms of their times. It would, therefore, be interesting to write about the differences between the two as they were both written in Britain during very different times. It is just interesting that they share so much while also being very different. Alternatively, I know that if I needed to I could most likely spin these two texts together to work for a genre question.



For the genre section, I am thinking about grouping some of the short stories together such as The Yellow Wallpaper, The Tell-tale Heart, and Bartleby the Scrivener. In class we have discussed how these texts all handle the unreliable narrator and a character’s loss of sanity. I think the secondary sources we have discussed so far would help a great deal with this. Additionally, as an alternative, I am always tempted to analyze The Yellow Wallpaper through a historical lens since it is such a huge comment on women’s rights during the late 1800s. In this way, The Yellow Wallpaper could be paired with an outside reading that I may bring with me called The Story of an Hour by Kate Chopin. This outside source is another short story which also deals with the struggle of women’s rights in the late 19th century. This sounds like a feminist reading now, but I think its actually a good thing to have a group of texts that you can treat with a theoretical reading, a historical context reading, or genre reading. I need to have a more concrete plan before the test, but I think I am laying groundwork here.



For my theory readings, I could use the texts I have already mentioned and do a feminist reading of them, or I could also bring in the Emily Dickinson poems and The Mark on the Wall. I’m really comfortable analyzing things through a feminist perspective so i am thinking to just stick to what I know. I’m also good with Marxist theory and Postmodern theory so I may use those. I am still working my way through some of the texts on the reading list so I may have to rethink some of these sections.

Flexibility and Modularity:

I like that, so far, I can use almost all the texts that I have named in more than one way. From what we have discussed in class, I will have some more texts that have multiple uses to add to my arsenal once I do a little more reading. Additionally, I still need to give a presentation on a text, so I will be an expert on at least one more text before test day. I just think I need to get a better handle on exactly how each work falls into each category because I want to make sure I stick to the category when writing. I would like to add at least another three or four texts to my list before test day. I think if I have the texts I have mentioned already and another 3-4 texts which can be used in more than one way, I should be okay.


Bhabha Theory Presentation

For my group’s theory presentation this week, it was my job to explicate the work. I attempted to identify and explain key passages and arguments of Bhabha’s for the class and, in doing so, try to help the class better understand the theoretical work.

One of the most important points of Bhabha’s to understand is that he describes colonized and colonizing worlds as “hybrid.” A good explanation of what “hybrid” means in terms of colonization could be found on page 288 of Parker. Essentially, he explains that the theory claims both change as a result of their relationship with one another.

Bhabha claims that boarders should be seen as porous transit points between different people. Cultures become hybrid and multiple as they sustain and change cultures they bring with them; they influence other cultures around them.

One of the most stressed things that Bhabha argues against is stereotypes. He claims that stereotypes deny the opportunity for variation and change to take place. Moreover, he claims that stereotyping cultures often project their own fears about themselves onto the “other.” This makes it so that they can feel as though they are not the thing they fear and are actually actively against what they fear. According to Bhabha even texts or other works of fiction that take a “realist” approach and are intended to critique or combat a particular stereotype often trade that stereotype for another. For example, a text that is trying to critique a particular racist stereotype will indulge in a different sexist stereotype. Bhabha says that the real problem with stereotyping in not misinformation, what it says about those who are imposing the stereotypes.

One of the other points Bhabha writes a great deal about is mimicry. This is when a colonized culture mimics the colonizing culture through language, dress, music, government, etc. This could threaten the colonizers’ sense of power and could, in some ways, destabilize colonialism. It is important to note that mimicry also happens in the opposite direction with the colonizers mimicking the colonized. Although this is usually done in a satirical way, it can also disrupt the power dynamic between the two cultures thus destabilizing colonialism. When the less powerful mimic the powerful, they menace the power structure. When the more powerful mimic the less powerful, the can reinforce the structure, yet suggest vulnerability.

In his introduction, Bhabha claims that society consists of hybrids of varying cultural backgrounds and identities. Similar to his view of boarders, he says that the sharing of cultural differences through interactions are like stairwells. Bhabha refers to them as the “in-between” (this is a recurring phrase for him) place that connects cultures and keeps them from being isolated. These in-between spaces and the “articulation of cultural differences” helps us to see new signs of identity and allows for hybridity.

Social differences, in Bhabha’s opinion, are signs of the emergence of community. The differences help to revise and reconstruct political conditions. This helps us avoid being organized into binary systems like black/white, rich/poor, male/female.

One of the other very prominent points that Bhabha writes about is “unhomely” moments. This moment in a text is when the home becomes uncanny or terrifying and refers to the blurring of our private and public lives. It is the presence of history or politics in the home which, therefore, effects private life. This is many times used to comment on private life.

Bhabha’s writing could be quite confusing and difficult to get through, but these are the main points of his that I gathered from his introduction and Parker’s writings on him. I do not pretend to be an expert on him, but if there is anything that he wrote about or anything mentioned above which you found confusing I’d be happy to discuss it with you in the comments below! Additionally, for those of you in the other section, my other group members who also presented on Bhabha are Lisa and Asheka. For more information on this text, I’m sure you can visit their blogs or drop them a line!

Final Revision Plans

I have been avoiding writing this post all week because I really wasn’t sure what my plans for revising were going to be after Wednesday. My draft has undergone a lot of changes since submitting it on Sunday and now I feel I can confidently say what my plans will be leading up to Friday.

As of right now, I plan to take into account all the feedback I will get from my group members and see how the feedback could mesh with what I now have. I understand that the feedback they will be giving me will be on my Sunday draft, but it may still help further evolve some of my ideas. After our workshop, I will (hopefully for the last time) print my paper and do a full read through to help polish the language and make sure that everything is working for me as intended. I’m finally feeling good about my project and feel comfortable with it; the writing finally feels like me. I feel like I have taken care of the things that I wanted to, so now I will just have to deal with whatever comes up during our workshop and final touches. Thanks so much, everyone, for your great advice and support; its made all the difference!

Revision To-Do List

During the next step of revising my research project I will have to:

  • Find and use sources that deal with the history of mental illness.
  • Somewhat revise thesis to be clearer and include the idea of illusion within the illusion of a play.
  • Go over draft to make sure certain incorrect claims are not made (such as O’Neill and Albee being contemporary). Instead, perhaps specify that they are both twentieth century playwrights.
  • Include critiques of mirror neurons research and what they mean.
  • Include a paragraph that introduces the plays and what each play does with mental illness.
  • Read over the draft with the idea in mind of clarifying any statement that reads as vague or is generalizing. Make specific claims based on sources.
  • Find a good quote for the beginning of my introduction.

I’m sure there are more things that I need to add to this list. I’m saving it to a word document that I will be adding to and will be able to change so if anyone has anything they think I should add, please feel free to let me know! As always, thanks so much to my group mates and Professor Tougaw for all their help and support!

A Midsummer Night’s Dream Presentation

Hello again, everybody! This week, I gave a presentation in class on A Midsummer Night’s Dream by William Shakespeare. Before diving into secondary sources, here a little background on the text itself. According the Oxford edition, A Midsummer Night’s Dream was written and first performed in 1595 or 1596 (when Shakespeare was approximately 31 years old) judging by its stylistic likeness to Love’s Labour Lost, Richard II, and Romeo and Juliet. There is some debate as to the exact birth date of the text, however, this is one of the limitations of working with a Shakespearean text. Additionally, according to Holland who wrote the introduction in the Oxford edition, A Midsummer Night’s Dream presents fewer textual problems than most other Shakespeare works (112). Another limitation of working with Shakespeare is that scholars are sometimes presented with textual problems or discrepancies in Shakespearean texts. However, compared many of Shakespeare’s other works, A Midsummer Night’s Dream present very few of these issues which means that what we read on the page is as close to what Shakespeare intended for us to read as possible.

First I would like to direct your attention to the Dreaming in the Middle Ages by Kruger which was a supplemental reading from the week we read A Midsummer Night’s Dream last semester. I’m sure professor Tougaw will post this reading on the site, however, it can also still be found on the fall semester’s calander. In the first chapter, Kruger tells readers that a popular belief of the Middle Ages was that dreams could be used to divine future events. Kruger writes, “Medieval approval of dream divination was expressed in the existence and popularity of manuals designed to reveal the future significance of dreams” (7-8).

There are texts that offer instruction on how to interpret dreams and in these texts we can see the importance that was placed on the meaning of dreams during a time period that precedes Shakespeare. This belief that dreams may be used to predict the future is based on Biblical events in which people’s futures are predicted or they speak to God in dreams.

Giraldus Cambrensis, a medieval writer: “Whatever vain imaginings other men may have on the subjects of dreams, I think we should sometimes believe and sometimes disbelieve them, just as we do rumors” (16). Kruger tells us that double statements like this are the usual for this time. Although many people do believe that a lot can be inferred from dreams, there is a debate on whether or not dreams should be read into very much. As a result, you have many writers making double statements and choosing to not fully support one side or the other.

At the time of this play’s writing, there was great controversy surrounding way people thought about dreams and what they mean. In the introduction to the Oxford edition of A Midsummer Night’s Dream Thomas Nashe, a Renaissance commentator on dream theory is quoted saying, “A dream is nothing else but a bubbling scum or froth of the fancy, which the day hath left undigested; or an after-feast made of the fragments of idle imagination…” (10). This thinking goes along with many other’s beliefs of this time that dreams were simply a reflection of our waking desires that then manifest themselves as dreams while we sleep. They could relate to being hungry, being stressed, or sexual desire. Nashe later goes on to claim that “there is no certainty in dreams” (11).

This conflicts with the other popular idea of the time that there is some greater meaning in dreams. People who believed that there was meaning in dreams thought there to be two types of dreams. They agree that there were some dreams which were simply reflections of our waking lives, but also believe that there were others that hold true meaning.

This other view is expressed in an anonymous play written in approximately 1600 (within 5 years of A Midsummer Night’s Dream) called The Wisdom of Doctor Dodypoll. In this play a character is quoted agreeing that there is a type of dream that is physical but then goes on to say, “The other hyper-physical: that is, / Dreams sent from heaven, or from the wicked fiends, / which nature doth not form of her own power, / But are extrinsicate, by marvel wrought, / And such was mine” (11). By looking at this other play of the same time period, we can see that this debate over the validity and implications of dreams was a wide debate during the time of Shakespeare. He certainly was not the only person writing about dreams or how they should be interpreted. Additionally, a connection can be drawn to medieval writings about dreams. Although this play is focused on a social debate of the time, Shakespeare does not take a side in it. There are times in the play when he claims that the events of dreams are important and should be taken seriously (like when all the events of the play are written off as a dream), but then refutes this by saying that audiences may disregard the events a they would an unimportant dream. Shakespeare’s entire play is a big double statement.

The existence of this social debate is an important thing to understand about the historical time period of the play’s writing. If on the exam you find yourself writing about the historical context of this play, it would be a very good thing to remember that there was a debate surrounding dream theory and whether or not dreams have meaning unless we give them meaning going on at the time.

I hope this was helpful! If anyone has any questions or there is anything that I can clarify a bit, please don’t hesitate to leave a comment below! 🙂

Revising Plans

After receiving some great feedback this week from Professor Tougaw, Michelle, and Francesca, I think I have a pretty clear plan of attack for the next few weeks. Following their suggestions, the first thing I am going to do is find some new and different sort of voices for my ballroom. This should not be too hard as I already have my hands on some that I will most likely be adding over the next couple of weeks. The next thing I will need to work on will be finding a better framework for how I introduce each new primary source. I can do this by technique, as Professor Tougaw has suggested, or perhaps follow Michelle’s advice and find a way to make the current framework I have work for me. I think that if the framework is doing something for me and helping me advance my thesis, then it would be okay to keep. I just need to make a choice there. I think that choice will be easier to make once I have a couple more people in my ballroom to play around with. Another thing I would like to do is interact more with other plays besides Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?. I feel like my voice was strongest there, and I would like that to come out more with the other plays. The last thing I would really put on my “to do” list would be to make certain claims that I have made, which I know are vague, regarding mental illness stronger. I can do this by rooting them in sources, but I need to find a way to do this that does not feel like I am letting everyone else do all the talking for me.

I think after I do all this, I can begin to move on to expanding on what I already have. I think after adding my new sources, interacting more with primary sources, reworking my framework, and expanding on what I have I should be pretty close to my page count (and exhausted). I think coming back to workshop with everyone at this point would probably be exactly what I need to do to get myself back on stable ground and finish polishing the paper. I would like to come back in the spring with 20 pages to work with so we’ll see how it goes! I’m very excited about the project and to see what it becomes as I continue to write and tweak it. Thanks so much for all the wonderful and super helpful feedback, everyone!


Hello all! I meant to let everyone know how my paper was going earlier, but as I keep writing, the problems I am facing keep changing. The very first thing that tripped me up was deciding exactly how I want to present my main sources. I have quite a few plays that I am working with, and I believe that I want to show them in chronological order. There are some secondary sources that I am working with, however, that relate two works to each other which will now not follow each other in the order of my paper. Its a little disappointing because I was hoping these sources would provide a bit of threading for me as I move from one work into another. I don’t think this will be a problem though. As I have continues writing, I actually think its good that they are a little spread apart. The “callback” to a previously discussed work makes it look like its not my secondary sources that led me from one primary source to the next (which they didn’t), but rather like these works are supposed to to discussed together in this way. It just looks like these other critics are even more on my side (I hope).

Additionally, I have done some interesting things that I didn’t know I was going to do. The biggest change I have made is not discussing Hamlet and Macbeth separately. I have decided to put the under a kind of Shakespeare subheading because, if I am going to have a chronological framework they are only written about three years apart from one another by the same playwright. They don’t show a lot of “change over time” so I’m putting them together and having them represent Shakespearean time in general. I think this is a good move also because I did not have a ton to say about Macbeth, but what I do say will help the rest of my paper. Putting it together with Hamlet will make it look like its not just thrown in there.

My last concern is that after having written a pretty long introduction, I think I have a thesis? I’m pretty sure I make a claim at the end of my introduction, but I’m not sure how entirely profound or clear it is. I keep scrolling up to my first page and just staring at it until I get frustrated and go back to writing. I’m sure this will be something that I will play around with in revisions.

Annotated Bibliography and Ballroom Diagram

Bialo, Caralyn. “Popular performance, the broadside ballad, and Ophelia’s madness.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900 53.2 (2013): 293+. Literature Resource Center. Web. 1 Dec. 2016.

I am most likely not going to use this source too much, but it will go very well with a different source I am using, as I explain later. This source helps me tie my use of O’Neill’s Long Day’s Journey into Night with Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The three sources I am planning to use together will help me explore the role the audience plays and the various ways that the playwright conveys where the line is between reality and illusion.


Coriat, Isador H. “The Hysteria of Lady Macbeth.The Hysteria of Lady Macbeth. Isador H. Coriat. Moffat, Yard and Compant, 1912. Rpt. in Shakespearean Criticism. Ed. Laurie Lanzen Harris and Mark W. Scott. Vol. 3. Detroit: Gale, 1986. Literature Resource Center. Web. 1 Dec. 2016.

This source discusses Lady Macbeth’s relationship between reality and unreality. This article will help me illustrate how mental illness was represented by Shakespeare before we had an awareness of mental disorders. Coriat comments on Shakespeare’s multi-use of Lady Macbeth’s hallucinations as metaphor and her loss of sanity. With this source, I will most likely do something along the lines of Piggybacking. I will show what Coriat says (very briefly) and then expand on it. I do not plan to lean too heavily on this source, but I believe it will be useful in making my argument stronger.


Dace, Tish. “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?: Overview.” Reference Guide to American Literature. Ed. Jim Kamp. 3rd ed. Detroit: St. James Press, 1994. Literature Research Center. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.

This source provides a direct link between two of my primary sources: Long Day’s Journey into Night and Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf. Dace talks about how the shattering of Martha’s illusion in Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf is similar to the action occurring in Long Day’s Journey into Night. He claims that, for there to be resolve, there must be a confrontation of illusion with truth. This is often what makes these works dramatic and is a common thread that I can trace through all of the works across time periods. It will also provide a nice transition from discussing one text to another for me. I believe I will most likely be doing a combination of Gaipa’s second and third strategies (Ass Kissing and Piggybacking) when dealing with this source.


Fleche, Anne. “Long Day’s Journey into Night: The Seen and the Unseen.” Mimetic Disillusion: Eugene O’Neill, Tennessee Williams, and U.S. Dramatic Realism. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 1997. 25-42. Rpt. in Drama Criticism. Ed. Janet Witalec. Vol. 20. Detroit: Gale, 2003. Literature Resource Center. Web. 30 Nov. 2016

Anne Fleche claims that, in a play, reality is portrayed through the characters themselves, their actions, and (most importantly) their dialogue. Fleche writes that the characters in Eugene O’Neill’s play live in illusion and that the writing of the play is what reveals reality. The writing can simultaneously portray the illusion while showing the audience what reality is. This will be a nice tie-in to my discussion of Hamlet. I have another source which claims that Ophilia serves as that play’s connection to the reality that is the audience, and the madness of the play. Additionally, this essay discusses the “haunting” of the character’s illusions and a different source of mine (Westgate) discusses how Hamlet also makes use of this trope of “haunting” when portraying madness. For this source, and the others briefly mentioned, I will be Piggybacking, Ass Kissing, and (in a way) Playing Peacemaker. Although these sources do not disagree with each other, they do not directly agree with each other either. I will be bringing them both together and showing how they are saying, essentially, the same thing (which also happens to agree with what I am saying).


Plunka, Gene A. “Existential Despair and the Modern Neurosis: Beth Henley’s Crimes of the Heart.” Beth Henley: A Casebook. Ed. Julia A. Fesmire. New York: Routledge, 2002. 105-127. Rpt. in Contemporary Literary Criticism. Ed. Jeffrey W. Hunter. Vol. 255. Detroit: Gale, 2008. Contemporary Literary Criticism Online. Web. 2 Dec. 2016.

This source discusses mental illness and the presence of actual, diagnosable disorders in Beth Henley’s Crimes of the Heart. This article will allow me to show just how much playwriting has changed since we have become more aware of mental illness. This article will give me a boost when I am exploring how an awareness of mental illness changes how we write and read a play. I will most likely be able to Piggyback and Leapfrog with this text.


Porter, Laurin. “Long Day’s Journey Into Night: Descent into Darkness.” The Banished Prince: Time, Memory, and Ritual in the Late Plays of Eugene O’Neill. Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI Research Press, 1988. 79-92. Rpt. in Twentieth-Century Literary Criticism. Ed. Thomas J. Schoenberg and Lawrence J. Trudeau. Vol. 225. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Literature Resource Center. Web. 2 Dec. 2016.

Porter deals heavily with the illusion of Long Day’s Journey into Night. This source discusses the character Mary’s illusion and madness. Mary is a woman who is addicted to morphine and roams (or haunts) her house in her wedding gown. Porter analyzes this illusion and claims that Mary is constantly living in a morphine-induced memory of her wedding day (one of her few happy memories). I will most likely Leapfrog with this source. I will agree with what Porter states, however, I will point out that the only reason audiences and readers know of this illusion and madness is because of the truth, or reality, being expressed through the dialogue of other characters. The madness exists in the illusion, but that is not all. Playwrights can only show the madness for what it is if they shatter it with reality.


Roudane, Matthew Charles. “Madness.” Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?: Necessary Fictions, Terrifying Realities Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1990. 37-43. Twayne’s Masterwork Studies 34. Twayne’s Authors on GVRL. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.

This source was a very beneficial discovery for me. Roudane deals directly with Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf as it relates to madness and illusion. This piece highlights how the road to Martha’s illusion was originally a coping mechanism and how she gets to her current state. Moreover, Roudane discusses Edward Albee’s (the playwright) method of showing this throughout the play such as the games the characters play, self-delusions, and lies told. This essay also has direct quotes from Albee discussing how all of the play’s action takes place in the audience and then goes on to discuss the audience’s role in the story telling which is unique to plays. This essay also talks about Hamlet which will provide me with a good transition into that text. This essay supports me completely, right down to the terminology that I am using, so I will be using a lot of Piggybacking and Ass Kissing.


Westgate, J. Chris. “Tragic Inheritance and Tragic Expression in Long Day’s Journey into Night.Eugene O’Neill Review 30 (2008): 21-36. Rpt. in Twentieth-Century Literature Criticism. Ed. Thomas J. Schoenberg and Lawrence J. Trudeau. Vol. 225. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Literature Resource Center. Web. 29 Nov. 2016

This is the source that I previously mentioned using with Fleche. This source shows how Hamlet also uses this trope of “haunting” when portraying a person who is going mad. This source also discusses the relationship between reality and madness as it relates to Hamlet and Long Day’s Journey into Night. As stated before, this source will be used with other sources so the same strategies that I used with Fleche will most likely apply to Westgate as well.



The conversation happening in this ballroom diagram begins with Fleche. He is saying how the use of dialogue in plays is how playwrights can portray reality. Bialo and Westgate then respond to Fleche using motivating move #6. They both agree with Fleche and can support him using seeming insignificant details from a different play being discussed. Additionally, Porter uses motivating move #6 in the same way as Bialo and Westgate in response to Fleche, but he also uses #1. He shows how certain details concerning certain characters are not what one would expect when first looked at, however, the details in the dialogue of characters do exactly what Fleche says they should. Roudane agrees with Fleche and Dace and supports what they claim using a different text. Related to these texts, and coming into the conversation via the discussion of Shakespeare, is Coriat. Coriat points out one of the techniques used by Shakespeare to portray Lady Macbeth’s madness in Macbeth. I then have Plunka jumping into the conversation using motivating move #5 in response to Coriat. Plunka shows how much change there has been in play writing and how plays are read since we have become more aware of mental illness. If we look at the two of these works and these two sources side-by-side, we can see this large change on a small scale.

Spam prevention powered by Akismet