The forever young couples on the play

The second act of the novel is getting more excited. Because we already spent too much time to describe about the situation, the background and details and their poetic words. So in the start of the Act two, we already know that the two main characters, Romeo and Juliet already fall in love with each other.  I like the the second scene of Act two, I guess it is one of the most well known part of the play, and also the most amazing quote from Shakespeare. 

So the story, the play already presented that Romeo and Juliet already met each other, they "unfourtunely " fell in love in the first sight. They were sick for each other, the love sick. Then there's a famous scene that both Juliet and Romeo spoke out their heart about loving each other together but Juliet did not know Romeo was under the floor and he heard what Juliet said.  When Romeo was standing under Juliet, and he saw her without she noticed. There's one quote for Romeo.

"It is my lady. O, it is my love! O, that she knew she were! She speaks, yet she says nothing. What of that ? Her eye discourses; I will answer it. I am too bold. 'Tis not to me she speaks...   ...See how she leans her cheek upon her hand. O, that I were a glove upon that hand, That I might touch that cheek!" It is the monologue of Romeo in his heart. Although he is the kind of person who is easy to fall in love with others, but we can see that is true love in his heart. He sees Juliet as his goddess. He stares at her face, at her everything. He even wants to be the glove upon her hand and then he can touch her cheek. He is straight in love. I like the world " fall in love". Exactly, he fell in love, in the river of love, full of his body and soul are bathed in love. This is what we usually can see from the teenager's love. They are pure, strong and burning like fire.  

Then, it's Juliet's term. Let's see how she shows her love to the audience and the world.

"O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo? Deny thy father the refuse thy name, Or, if thou wilt not , be but sworn my love, And I'll no longer be a Capulet."  Her words are so much less than Romeo's, but stronger and more insisted into love. She was really upset and felt hopeless that the only one in this world she truly fell in love with is her family's enemy. The freezing word, the hurtful name "Romeo Montague". She hates when she could not change anything with her life when the love came so fast. She is impossible to be together with Romeo. Just like in the hell, once she has seen the light direct from the heaven, just one sight that she was addict with, then the endless darkness bury her world. But she does not care about everything which is on the way to her true love. "Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love, And I'll no longer be a Capulet." 

She can do everything to Romeo. She can give up her everything great for him, her family, her relatives, her glory and wealth.  I think both of the teenagers are blind in front of the power of love, but they are extremely lucky. They had true love, and that is enough. Although they fell in love with the wrong person in the wrong place in the wrong time, but it all does not matter. They live shiny, like the flowers in the summer, the sun at the noon. They live shortly, but their life are valuable.  Thousands of years past, people will still remember, once upon a time, long long ago, there was a young couple, they fell in love with each other. 

        In the afternoon of an ancient city of Italy, Verona, their shadows across each other, just like their souls. 

In class writing

Juliet was really upset about the fact that her true lover Romeo is her family's real enemy, Montagues. She wish that Romeo is a normal person that she can be loved with, however, she is very unfourtune. She fall in love with a person that is impossible for her. But she loves Romeo more than her family. So if she has choice, she would give up the idenity of Capulet, be a normal girl, only if she can marry Romeo. She can do everything for him for they get together and married. 

Romeo and Juliet: The love which can travel though time

I have never read any books, plays or movies about Romeo and Juliet. But I have heard about them since I was really young. There are not any special reasons. Their story under Shakespeare's hands are just so famous, well known and magical. Everyone in this planet knows about their sad, but beautiful story.  The story took place in the Renaissance age, in Verona, Italy. Romeo and Juliet are the young lovers. But their love is forbidden. Because their families are enemies, they tries to to kill each other for a long time. So there is no way for them to get together, get married and have an amazing life together. But they still tried to chase the impossible happiness. Just like the bugs admire light, they fly into fire. Romeo and Juliet also fly to a beautiful death. The death solved the huge conflict between the two families, and spread the fantastic story to every places in this world. They become the symbol of lovers. That is all I know, about the "prior knowledge". 

When I just get started to read the play of Romeo and Juliet, the first impression which hits my head the most is the language that Shakespeare used. Those old words such as "thee, thy" from Ancient English are just like the wind from remote antiquity. Luckily there are lots of definitions under the book. So as a result I need to read every single definitions because I can't understand the language and the way Shakespeare wrote it. All of them just like puzzles. Before we went over some parts of the play in class and the movie, I was reading it for no value. Hardly understand them. The characters of the scene that I have just read they are just like poets. They are speaking just like making poems, but not the normal spoken languages. Especially the main character , Romeo. His words are really poetic, and as you said he is really the "Queen of Dramas". For an example he talked with Benvolio, his cousin about his problems about love like this ".. Doth add more grief to too much of mine own. Love is a smoke made with the fume of sighs; Being purged , a fire sparkling in lovers' eyes; Being vexed, a sea nourished with loving tears." I am pretty sure that he is definitely not talking like normal human beings. If I am his cousin I will be crazy about him. It is so true that " everyone in the Montague family are worried about him".  His cousin Benvolio is a kind of "normal person" compare with Romeo. He speaks shortly and more spoken languages. For example" It was . What sadness lengthens Romeo's hours? " " Alas that love, so gentle in his view, should be so tyrannous and rough in proof!" "No , coz, I rather weep." He is just like a great friend and also the protector of Romeo and his weak heart. And also the leader, the Prince of the city Verona is the only guy who speaks manly I guess. His words are fair and upright. " Will they not hear? -- What ho! You men, you beasts, That quench the fire of your pernicious rage With purple fountains issuing from your veins: On pain of torture, from those bloody hands Throw your mistempered weapons to the ground, and hear the sentence of your moved prince. " Those are the characters who give me a strong impression. 

Romeo and Juliet summary

IIn the start of the book, there was a fight between Montague and Capulet. They brought their blades, and spoke aggressively to each other. Then the older people from the both families arrived. They stopped the fight. They told each other, " the conflict of the Montague and Capulet are not short enough by just finished a fight right now. " Then the Capulets left. Benvolio, the cousin of Romeo tried to talk with Romeo and solve the problems in his heart. Excatly. Romeo fell in love with a girl who is "impossible to love". She is the daughter of their enemy, the Capulet. Her name is Juliet. Their forbidden love will burn themselves, but they are just like the bugs which admire light, they fly into fire.  

The summer reading test ;)

We have just read the book The Curious Incident of the Dog in the night-time to the play version. It is really short to compare with the other books that we have read in class. I spent a weekend and I just finished reading it. In the English class there was day the teacher gave us a piece the the novel and a script from the play witch both describe the same scene. When I just looked at them it is totally different. One side of the script is just several words with couple space together and dialogues, which is the easiest kind of piece of reading to read, and also my favorite. But the other side is full of words, stick together. 

When I read through it, the script part is mostly dialogues and a little narrate part. And the several parts of the scene changed really fast, if we just read through the script I guess we need to imagine and think about the rest part to make it more completed. The different parts of the scene changed with several large space and a little narrate part. But on the other side of the paper, it is the novel version of the book. It is really long to compare with the script of the play version, too long even I thought they are not talking about the same scene.  The novel version is normal, just like an essay separate the different part of the scene with different paragraphs. There are only a little pieces of dialogues, as much as the narrate parts in the play version script. And it adds much more psychological description than the script, just like the monologue.  It is also much more detailed compare with the play version script. Here I want to show a compartment, about both of the play and the novel describing same thing. 

The play version: "Christopher I made you a chart. Because you've got to eat love. In here is some Complan and it's got strawberry flavoring in it." "Complan?" "Be quiet Roger. Christopher if you drink 200ml then I'm going to put a bronze star on your chart." "I don't believe this." "Roger for God's sake, please. If you drink 400 ml you get a silver start." "Ha!" "And if you drink 600 ml you get a gold star." 

And the novel version: " And I hadn't eaten anything since I threw away the red ice lolly on Hampstead Heath, so Mother made a chart with stars on it like when I was very small and she filled a measuring jug with Complan and strawberry flavoring and I got a bronze star for drinking 200 ml and a silver star for drinking 400 ml and a gold star for 600 ml." 

As you can see, the play version is totally full of dialogues, and the novel version is opposite. The play version are just like a 3D version, there are couple different people talking and participating. But the novel version is like the 2D picture version. There's only the main character's psychological description. This would be the second part of this essay: What decisions did the playwright make in cutting parts or changing parts of the novel when adapting it into the play? About the example above, it shows the differences. The playwright is making a play, a show for a group of audiences watch it together. So the playwright needs to make the way of describing tridimensional. He may add some parts to make the dialogues more emotional, straight and more colorful to watch. But novels are different. The writer is writing for his readers, but the readers are reading the book individually, so it is all right to make the text detailed, or becoming a "monologue". 

The last question that I will talk about maybe really short. I am a bad English reader, I read really slowly and my vocabulary is really poor. So when I got to read the play version of the book I was thrilled. I have never read a kind of easy book like that! No more difficult vocabularies! No more crazy words stick together! Well, absolutely I would say that I like the play version much more than the novel version. I find the script is more enjoyable, and obviously easy to read.            

Citation: The curious Incident of the Dog in the Night - Time, author: Mark Haddon.

    The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night- TIme script, adapted by Simon Stephens.

Literature and Performance?

This year, I choose the class IB Literature & Performance as my only English class. It is the upgraded version of the English classes that I have taken. Literature, I have experienced when I was young. Because, any pieces of writing work is a part of literature, even a little piece of diary. But for performance, especially performance in English, I guess this is my first time to get in touch about it. And now, my assignment is about to discuss the similarities of them. In my opinion, the similarities of literature and performance are much more than their differences. We learn both of them in the same class, and I believe literature is the origin of performance, and performance is the upgraded version of literature, and the different emphasizes.

  "The quest to discover a definition for "literature" is a road that is much travelled, though the point of arrival, if ever reached, is seldom satisfactory. Most attempted definitions are broad and vague, and they inevitably change over time. In fact, the only thing that is certain about defining literature is that the definition will change. Concepts of what is literature change over time as well." This is one of my favorite definition of literature. I found this from wikipedia, and the citation of it is "Simon Ryan; Delyse Ryan. "What is Literature?". Foundation: Fundamentals of Literature and Drama. Australian Catholic University. Retrieved 9 February 2014." Maybe based on my English skills, I think this quote is kind of hard to understand. But to be honest, I like the idea and the way the author wrote it. Actually, when I was trying to find a definition of literature, I had a hard time to describe it correctly and fairly. After I started to search on Internet about how others think about the definition, I think this one the author gets the point. We human beings have literature after we have characters, so we've had such a long time with the experience of literature. The forms of literature have changed so many times, and it is continuing changing. Because of the long history of literature it has, we can't give a accurate definition of it. So in the quote " most attempted definitions are broad and vague, and they inevitably change over time." perfectly describe how the definition of literature should be like. 

"A performance, in the performing arts, generally comprises an event in which a performer or group of performers present one or more works of art to an audience. " This is the definition of performance that I found on Wikipedia. Sadly that I can't find an amazing, detailed definition like the literature's one. Compare with literature, the emphasizes of performance are different. Performance is more like a communication of people, between both of the actors and the audiences. The definition gives the the contents that a performance usually have: an event. It is like the beautiful pack of the event. I would say the event is normally from literature, or just a part of it. For example, script is also a kind of literature. They work together as a whole, and performance is the secondary production of literature. 

About the differences between a novel and a play? I would say it is like "the shadow of the similarities and differences of literature and performance". Novel is a part of literature, and play is also a kind of product of performance. Both of the novel and the play is telling a story. They describe the story, and the people around the story. Normally the script of a play is from a novel. About the differences I think the first is that novel is longer and more detailed, but play is shorter but more impressed. Because a book can be long to read and spend time with it, but a play has a time limitation. Then is the way people enjoy it. For reading a book, I guess mostly people will just read by themselves. It is an independent experience. They may have a conversation with the author of the book when they read it. But a play, audiences watch it together. The actors in the play pay more emotion and it expresses to the audiences too. Sometimes audiences may also express their own emotions. 

A script is less then a play?

1. I think the quote from How to Read a Play is about thecompartments between Literature and Performance. 

2. The text of a play, full of words is the script, and the whole play is the completed production. Most of us feel the play is more attractive than the script, because the words are too pale to compare with a group of people perform in front of you. This is the reason why in the quote it uses the word "obviously less".

3. Although I change my English calss only for you as my teacher, I guess it is also a chance for me to get in touch and learn about performance. It is the indispensible part of a language and also a culture. I want to get in touch in drama as afternoon activities too, so this is the time for me to learn more. About this class, I think we will use the time here to "perform the language". From now, we will not only know how to write. 

Me?

Who am I? This is a kind of hard question to answer well I guess. But we don't have to think and make the answer perfect, all because this is a question without right answers: The answers are in our hearts. So let's start with words and pictures. 

         This is my hometown Harbin, in winter. It is in the Chinese part Siberia, the city is one of the biggest in the Northeast Asia, and it only takes one hour to travel to Russia by train. So there are a lot of Russian influences in that city. Not only the freezing cold air around -40 C in winter, food, culture everything. There is one of the most famous symbol of the influences, the Orthodox Eastern Church from Russia. Both of my parents went to study in university in Moscow, they met and fell in love in that beautiful city. All the memories of my family started from there. So it's not surprised for me to like Russia, their culture, people, views, language, everything. 

           

           This is a knight carrying Mongolian flag. I choose this picture because I have similar blood with them. My father, has half Mongolian blood, and my mum is Manchurian. Both of their ancestors are part of nomadic nations. Then it makes me feel close with it too. If you why it is an important part of me and I chose to write it down? I don't really know. Maybe because I love history? Maybe because of the cultural gene of the East. Yes, we see our family and traditions as one of the most important things in this world. We are proud of it, and wish it make our nation become better and better.

    

           This is a picture that I took in the garden front of my home. I would like to take photos of the beautiful views around me. I don't have any skills about it, but my grandmother is a national photographer--- top 50 of China. Is that the reason why I like to take photos like that? I think the pictures are the savings of all the amazing moments that we have experienced.

 

         The Potala Palace, Tibet.

 

        And this is in our school. 

Okay, the pictures part is finished. It's the time to face all the words now. Our topic now is about several facets of my identity. I am a student, a high school student, but not as a duteous student. I am lazy and playful. During the past two years that I spent in Cheshire Academy, in United States I didn't work hard, but just deal with the schoolworks. This will be changed, I believe. There is nothing scared about a person's terrible situation, but only if he doesn't have any wishes to change it. I do not worry about my profession as a high student as much as before, I think I will just do my best, and all the difficult things will be perfectly done.  

As a thinker, I guess I am the one who think with more sense but less sensibility. It is just in general. For example if I am thinking about how to solve a problem, the most important thing always is how I will get it solved successfully, and step by step. 

As an athlete. Actually I am not good at sports. When I was 6 years old, I got bad asthma, and almost died because of it. My mother took care of me even gave her job. Then about a year ago, I started to go to weight room, do body building. It was a really hard time that I had experiences about it, but luckily I still insist to do it as one of the best habits I have I guess. 

As a friend, or the way that I get friend? I am a kind of person who is nice to the people who is also kind to me. I like to make friends, however, I don't often make one. Because I think we may have lots of people who can stay around with us and have fun with us, but not the people who may still stay with us when we are in trouble or a low place of our life. And that is my definition of friends. So I don't have lots of friends, but I think my friendship with them are trustful.

As a family member. I don't dare to say that I am a good family member, but I put my family as the most important group of people in this world. My grandparents, parents, or the wife and children in the future, they are my goals and reason to work hard and get successful, in some ways.

As a citizen of the world, first I am a nationalist. Then the second will be the peace of the world. I believe in that every kinds of religions are equal and as good as each other. People, we are all human beings. I think peace is a reward, for less hatred existed in this world. 

As me, I am a real person and I am who I am, who I want to be. ;)