Half-Formed Sentences

    My first question as I began reading the first chapters of "A Girl is a Half-Formed Thing" was who is the narrator of this story. The first chapter was seemingly narrated by the mother of the young boy, but then also seemed to be narrated by the unborn baby. In reading the second chapter, it was obvious that it was the little girl telling the story. The narration jump was a little hard to follow, as I was barely used to the structure of story before it shifted. The style of the sentences is very difficult to follow because it can change from one thought to the next without any warning. The "stream of consciousness" is mirrored in the short burst of thoughts that are seemingly incomplete, but don't take away from conveying the story. I expected to be really confused by the choppiness, so I think that I was going in with that mindset. As soon as I was able to piece together the short bits of sentences, it became easier to read as I went along. It felt like I was reading from the mind of a child. Like whoever is narrating has a short attention span, forgets a lot of details (except for the important parts), and doesn't tell the whole story. I still can't quite place my finger on what is missing from the sentences, however. Is it articles? Action verbs? At first, I thought the entire thing was written in a passive voice but that wasn't it.
    I had a much harder time reading the six pages of "Ulysses." Even though the thoughts were more whole and complete, the lengthy paragraphs made it more difficult to follow along with Leopold's stream of consciousness. Joyce uses his paragraphs to show us how his attention is flitting around the room, and the sentences are reflective of how the brain works as we try to take in a new room all at once. We don't note every detail, but pick up on the ones that catch our attention. I think that Leopold Bloom is Joyce's attempt at creating an objective observer that allows a character to provides an inside look at the life of Dublin and its people. Unlike in our novel, we are in the mind of an adult in "Ulysses," so we are getting a much more mature look at the world, without any of the important details being left out.
   The point of a style that mimics the stream of consciousness is so that the reader is introduced to a narration style that reflects how their own brain works. We may not realize it but when our senses are being overloaded, most of the time we don't think in complete thoughts. In "A Girl is a Half-Formed Thing," the narrator is a child, and children are constantly learning new things about the world using their senses. So in that story, we see a lot of jumping around and distractedness. Adult thoughts are much more coherent and complete, that is why in "Ulysses," the paragraphs are longer and more detailed. It also provides a very intimate knowledge of the events to be 100% in the mind of a person experiencing them.

The Playboy of the Western World

    "Strangers are taken for saviors" is apparently quite a literal statement. Any patricidal maniac is welcome in Irish homes, as long as they don't lie about it. According to Michael, Jimmy, and Philly, it takes great bravery to kill ones father, and all real heroes are brave. This play again mocks the Irish hospitable tendencies, and their gullible nature to believe the good in all people. Christy Mahon, the heroic stranger in "The Playboy of the Western World," has come from a far away place on the run after killing his evil and abusive father. My first thoughts as I read this play were that it's interesting that a group of men (who are presumably fathers) were proud of a man that willingly killed his own father. Comparing that with the interesting relationship between Father Reilly and Shawn, there father/son dynamics in this play are all over the place.

    Pegeen Mike and her father seem to be on good terms, with just the right amounts of respect and back talk. Father Reilly never makes an appearance in the play, but we still get the sense that he is a force to be reckon with by the way Shawn is "afeared" of him so often. It must be an uneasy relationship if Shawn is too scared to do anything against his wishes, even if he would be doing something for his possible future wife. Lastly, as the second act progresses, we are introduced more and more to the relationship between Christy and his father. This one confused me the most because why did the father keep coming back after nearly being murder two or three times? What would drive Christy to be so angry with his father? It couldn't have just been the wedding to someone he didn't love. It doesn't make sense to me, but maybe it doesn't need to. Every generation goes through a stage when they feel they need to break away from their fathers, and do things in their own way. That's how change occurs. The three relationships highlight we read about are what happens when things get too extreme (Christy), or aren't pushed far enough (Shawn). Pegeen Mike is really the only one that logically voices her opinions to her father and breaks free from the traditional in her own way. It could be nationalistic, if we consider it to be a play about the newer generations fighting against the old to provide a brighter future and protect their posterity.

    Another one of my preliminary thoughts as I began this play were about the strangeness of the language used by the characters. Other than the unordinary syntax, I couldn't quite place my finger on why I found it so jarring, so I took to the internet. Apparently, the language was one of the reasons for the riots at the play's debut. Irish viewers were outraged that a play that claimed to be nationalistic was conforming to the language of the oppressor. Maybe this was Synge's intention, to rile everyone up about how tolerant they have been to the English rule. Maybe he wanted them to get angrier and more violent, even if some of the initial riots were centered around fighting the stigma that the Irish are inherently violent people (ironic, right? Let's riot to prove we aren't violent people). It could be nationalistic in that way, as well, if it we read it as a play meant to anger the Irish about their tolerance, or revert them to violence and anger.
 
     But the plot still confuses me if each play is meant to make a comment on everyday life. I can say  I am certain that Christy is no hero, which all the people in the play agree with at the end. But does Christy's inability to kill his father, and Shawn's inability to fight back against Father Reilly, really equate to the Irish being doomed to fail? If we look at it that way, then no, because we are given the relationship between Pegeen Mike and her father that gives us hope that it could actually happen. Even though she is still obedient to her father, she has a bit of fight and spirit in her that allows to speak her mind. I'm still not quite sure how to get at the meat of this play, because I'm unsure about what part of life it's commenting on.

"The Pot of Broth" and "Cathleen Ni Houlihan"

    The very first similarity I noticed about both "Cathleen Ni Houlihan" and "The Pot of Broth" is that both are centralized around guests in the homes of the Irish folk. In the former, an old woman weary of traveling from thieves and sadness; in the latter, an unwelcome tramp in search of food. It is important to note that the woman is welcome in the home of the Gillanes, while the tramp is in the house of the Coneely's unbeknownst to them and unwelcome. However, what they represent is something quite opposite. Although there is something supernatural about Cathleen, it soon becomes clear that she is meant to represent Ireland itself, and that she and her people have been robbed and pillaged by strangers of foreign rule. Her songs speak of the lives lost and the lives soon to be lost in the unending fight towards freedom. The tramp, on the other hand, I had a harder time placing what he may symbolize. At first I thought he might symbolize the government coming to collect things he has no right to. But then I began to think that maybe this tramp symbolizes England and it's rule over Ireland by conning the lower class out of their food by telling lies and stealing. His first song is much more malicious and selfish in tone and shows the true nature of the tramp's stories.
      After writing that first paragraph, the second thing I noticed in both plays is the use of songs by the weary travelers. Historically in theater, the use of songs in choruses is meant to show the truth of what is happening on the stage to the audience, sort of like a narrator that is not seen but knows more than the characters. I think the same principle applies here, in that the songs of the guests reveal to us as readers what their actual intentions are. Even if the characters think that they're  just songs, the audience knows that mood and intentions are being hinted at in their lyrics.
       Another thing I noticed after I had read both plays, is the differences in the way the scenes are set. The first page of "Cathleen Ni Houlihan" describes to us a normal family scene at the Gillanes, where they hear cheering from their window as they prepare for their son's wedding the next day. This is a relatively normal scene, full or curiosity and hopes for the future. This is much the way the rest of the play goes, until the old woman begins singing of all the people that are going to answer her call to battle but will eventually die as the rebellion is squashed. What makes the opening so interesting is when we compare it to the opening of "The Pot of Broth." As this play opens, the Coneely's are not even in the same room as the tramp, let alone aware of his presence there. And his actions as he rummages through their limited food supplies suggest a much more malevolent and bleak situation. The irony of it all is that the Coneely's only end up with their food tricked away from them, with no way to feed the expected  priest. But the story that started to so hopeful, ended with a promising son running from his own bride to fight in rebellion where his death is all but guaranteed.