Power in Macbeth and Monopoly

Power In Macbeth

I think that the more power someone desires, the more corrupt actions they'll commit to obtain that power. I also think that Shakespeare would agree with this idea to a large extent because Macbeth exemplifies this exact behavior. In the beginning of the play, Macbeth was portrayed as a loyal warrior who would do anything for his king. However, when Macbeth met with the three witches who prophesied that he would be king, there was a change in his character, which with the help of persuasion from Lady Macbeth lead to the death of King Duncan. Unfortunately, it didn't stop here; since the first part of the witches' prophecy came true, Macbeth set out to kill his friend Banquo and son, Fleance in order to prevent the second part from coming true (Banquo's children become will reign). Shakespeare shows that power corrupts by using Macbeth who's craving for power results in the killing of others, and eventually his downfall.

Power In Monopoly

I don't recall too many instances where I had power over a whole country, but I do remember having power playing monopoly. When I was younger, my favorite board game was monopoly, and whenever I played with my friends, we appointed an "accountant" that passed out and collected the money whenever someone bought a house. We all knew that this was a big role that shouldn't be taken advantage of. However, back in those days, I was a corrupt official. Whenever I was the accountant, I would steal some money from the bank and put it in my stash so that I could buy all the houses and win the game (....but does anyone really ever even win a game of monopoly?) Just like Macbeth in his campaign for power, I performed corrupt deeds in order to win, and these actions were stemmed from my abuse of the sacred power of monopoly accountant.

Blog Post 5

Freebie!

The Deadly Sins in Advertising

Author- Louis Vuitton 

Date of Publication- April 1999

Place of Publication- France

Looking at the little picture...

One would see two women fighting for a handbag. Interestingly, both women seem to have on the same clothes (but different colors), the same hairstyle, the same style of make up on their face, and they look alike. The text is placed aside, in small monochromatic font, and doesn't interfere with the primary image. This seems to place the emphasis of the advertisement on the women, and their struggle for the handbag. In addition, there is an image filter, that intensifies the image by making it appear red. 

Looking at the BIG picture...

One can see the persuasive techniques used by the advertising company, and how they correlate with the deadly sins of envy and lust. The fact that both women look strikingly similar, suggests that they are closely related (possibly sisters of friends). The woman on the right, seems to be the owner of the handbag because she has more possession of it, and is holding it as if she is defending her own product. The woman on the right seems as if she started this altercation because she wants what the woman on the right possesses - this shows the envy of the woman on the left. The advertising company draws on the lust of the audience by expressing that this handbag is something that they should want or buy because it's so valuable that two close friends will fight over it.

The audience- 

This advertisement targets young and wealthy women. This is because the women in the image are dressed elegantly, with very fashionable clothing. They are also very polished, with their makeup and hair well done (in other words they look like models). The brand also suggest that the audience is of higher class and wealth because Louis Vuitton is a brand that sells items that reach $100,000, so it would only be logical if they were to advertise to those who can afford their products. I don't think the audience would have much cultural knowledge; rather, they would have a sense of fashion because it wouldn't make much sense for someone to spend such alarming prices on designer products if he or she wasn't either wealthy or a fashionable.

What is Abbott's name?

The name Abbott isn't exactly a common name. It's quite different and unique and when I was younger I struggled a little with it because it was so different. It wasn't that I didn't like my name, its just that people always found a way to complicate it either with the spelling or the pronunciation. Whenever I told someone my name, they would spell it as 'Abit' or 'Abbit' or something else of that variation. Conversely, whenever I wrote my name down, they would pronounce my name as 'Aboot' or 'Abut.' I always wished for a nickname so that I could avoid this complication, but the closest I got to one was Abbott the rabbit or Ab-Lounger (the 30 minute ab workout). 

 I don't have a remarkable story about how I got my name, I was simply named after one of my dad's closest friends (by the way his name was Abbott). I've never thought much about the definition of my name, which means the head of a religious community of monks living in a monastery, because I don't really that definition is important. I don't really think my name defines me; I believe my morals, actions and character are what represent who I am, and my name is just what all these things are attributed to. I believe that how I am perceived or remembered isn't by my name, rather by the things I've done or the way I've acted towards a certain person. 

The "two" Abbott are the Abbott at school and the Abbott out of school. The Abbott out of school is extremely goofy and funny. I mean you probably couldn't hold a conversation with me without both of us laughing in tears. This is because I've known my out of school folks for a looong time, and I'm comfortable with looking crazy in front of them. However, the Abbott in school is passive, not as funny (but still pretty funny), and a lot more serious. Frankly, I don't know why I have these two different sides, I guess it's just that I don't want to overwhelm people when I first meet them. I like to keep things "normal," until I get to know someone well. The biggest dilemma that comes from these two sides is when my school friends meet my out of school friends and I don't know which side to use in the conversation. Usually when this happens, I try to separate both friends, and talk with them individually, and if that doesn't work, I just slowly and kindly walk away from the conversation. 

Wing Young Huie & Margaret Atwood

Image Properties: 

• Author- Wing Young Huie
• Date of Publication- 2012
• Place of Publication- Minneapolis, MN

What do we see from just looking at it? 

At first glance, the viewer is drawn by the bright/intense red jackets of the individuals that contrasts with the lighter colors of the background. This background involves a store or supermarket, that sells both food and clothing.  The next "attention grabber" in the scene would be the signs that these individuals are holding. More than likely, the viewer would be drawn to the sign on the left because the text is larger and more legible. Interestingly, as the viewer scans the sign, either during or after, they'll probably look at faces of the individuals, as well as their current location (the supermarket). At this point, the viewer then begins to conceive ideas about the message of the image. Stereotyping and victim blaming, are the explicit messages stated through the text on the signs. "People Think I'm In A Gang"- refers to a misconception or stereotype of black males.  "Stay out of the wrong place" and "Be more careful" refer to the victim blaming of individuals when found in bad situations and wrongly accused. 

What do we see when we look deeper?

Looking deeper, the viewer can further interpret the theme of stereotyping and how it fits into this scene.The most recognizable connection to stereotyping can be made through the red jackets worn by both individuals. Red is a color that is associated with the Bloods, which are a notorious gang in the U.S. that is composed primarily of African Americans. Making the connection between the red color and the sign that reads "People think im in a gang...", gives the viewer insight on the author's message that how people dress or look doesn't or shouldn't affect the way they are perceived by others. A deeper analysis of the image also unveils an implied message to the viewer- ignorance. Ignorance can be defined as a lack of knowledge or facts about a situation or subject. This ignorance refers to the ignorance of society, and by using the sign that says "People think im in a gang [but] im in college" the author is implicitly saying that society fails to understand the actuality of the situation of this racial group, yet they ignorantly and falsely make claims about these individuals based on the way they look.

How do Margaret Atwood and Wing Young Huie present othering?

Atwood and Huie both present othering with the use of color. In The Handmaids Tale, the social classes within the women are separated by many things, and one of these is the color of the clothes they wear. The Handmaids are forced to wear red, the Wives wear blue, and the Marthas wear brown. The use of the color red is to show the Handmaids' inferiority to the other classes, in which they are still excepted, but looked down on as separate or alien from the society. Huie presents this same idea by dressing both individuals in red.Both the young man and woman are wearing red jackets and headwear (hat and hoodie), that contrasts with the background of their location. This contrast in color along with the lack of presence of any other people, creates a visual isolation of these two individuals. Along with this, the signs indicate that these individuals are misjudged and looked down upon by others. Similar to Atwood, Huie does this to express that although they are accepted in the society, they are still somewhat excluded or segregated because that are viewed different and negatively by other groups within their society.