In Monkman's artworks, I see a lot of techniques that resemble artwork in the renaissance period. His works have well-rendered gradients and details, while his compositions often involve lots of different elements or objects. Many of his work shows lots of people in some kind of interation that looks like a conflict, and on top of that I saw how the people were always split into a fraction of white people and a fraction of indigenous people. In addition to that I also notice that he often likes to draw certain people in a unisex way, where a man can be seen having a slightly feminine face while wearing heels. Maybe this is related to the concpet of being two spirited, which is something quite unique to the indigenous peoples of Canada. Therefore I think Monkman wants to illustrate the general conflict between the white people and indigenous groups, where indigenous peoples are forced to abandon what is unique to them.

I thought an interesting contrast was created for Hugh, the headmaster of the hedge school. Before his entry in the first few pages, Manus, Doalty, Bridget, Jimmy, and Maire were casually chatting about various things happening in Ballybeg. They were even joking about their Master's drinking habits when Bridget responded "Master - when were you last sober？" to Doalty, who was mocking their master at that time. However, as soon as the group heard that their master was coming back from the pub, each character quickly arranged themselves in the classroom to look prepared and studious. As Hugh enters, he is described as "a large man, with residual dignity". This immediately illustrates his nobility and authority within the school. In addition to that he was also "shabbily dressed" which implies that he was poor, like his students. This gives me the impression that despite his poorness, he remains a great teacher and robust figure to represent hedge schools. As the story progresses, I predict that Friel will illustrate more of his authoritative traits and clear-mindedness as a headmaster, which will be crucial in times of confusion and anger.

the Aeneid itself follows a story of the powerful Roman empire that conquers the entire Europe. The conquering of the Roman Empire can symbolize the British colonialization of Ireland. Of course, the stories within "The Aeneid" take on a more extreme approach where Rome killed nations, whereas "Translations" only talks about the loss of a language. However, I do believe some other part of Ireland was 'killed'. The most obvious portion of their culture that was destroyed by the British is Language, but with that the underlying stories embedded within the language was also killed, because the 'standarization' eventually caused the Irish education to change as well.

Additionally, this allusion may also hint at a sense of hope because the story follows a refugee who metamorphosizes into a leader who builds a great empire. This discussion of resistance may also suggest how in actual history, Ireland was able to preserve their own culture and language.

residential schools

meaning of history to Indigenous peoples

purpose - want people to be more reflective on the last 150 years (specifically addressing the last 150 years

of education? why weren't residential schools educated?

inspired by art history - different narratives in paintings

The daddies

• based on a painting of Confederation, but it excludes the Indigenous

• Miss Chief - represents Indigenous perspective

• the other "fathers" - interpreted by audience

draws a idea from classical paintings

even in modern cities, indigenous perspectives are still evident.

What do you think is Kent Monkman’s main goal with his art? How does he use his paintings to communicate messages?

• I think Monkman's main goal with his art is to challenge the already exsisting narratives in history. His experiment with combining exsisting paintings with his own perspectives and messages prompts me as an audience to think about the viability of exsisting information or representaion about certain things. For example, the painting that stood out to me the most was "The daddies" where he added Ms. Chief on the painting of "the fathers of confederation". I was familiar with the fathers of confederation even though I'm not canadian, and the sudden appearance of Ms. Chief and the Hudson Bay Blanket prompted me to look deeper into the painting. In "the daddies", I think that the presence of Ms. Cheif and the blanket expresses irony in relation to the fathers of confederation. In general, I think that Monkman is trying to convey how it is ironic that the fathers of confederation did not mention a thing about indigenous people and their most primitive connection to Canada. For many of Monkman's other paintings, I think that he is trying to express messages under the same topic of colonialism, underrepresentation and violence.

• How do you think art can be used to change people’s perceptions of history and culture? Can you think of any other examples (besides Monkman) where art has challenged or changed societal views?

• the topics I mentioned previously provide the audience with new perspectives to the land they stand upon. When they see a classical artwork that has been purposefully altered (like "the daddies") most audiences will notice how something is irregular and they would be intrigued by Monkman's artistic choices. I think one of Monkman's purposes of creating art is for the audience to question and inquire about his choice of elements and figures, because while doing so they are also investigating more into the ingenous perspective of things and it will eventually lead to the advocation for underrepresented indigenous voices.

I need to continue developing my vocabulary for describing devices and analysing texts. By expanding my vocab on adjectives, I think I can have better word choice in my writing, which can clarify my analysis on the text.

I am particularly proud of my final essay and another one I did as practice at home. I am very impressed how I was able to write all my analysis within an hour, something I was originally anxious about. At the same time, I was also able to follow a organized strucutre for my paragraphs, where I clearly stated the analysis/message/purpose of the text.

Carter subverts the original Snow White narrative by adding elements of horror to critique the unequal power sharing between men and women. In The Snow Child, the child that appears in the story serves as a hyperbolic version of the original Snow White. Snow White was portrayed with a passive and submissive persoanlity as well as an appearance of pure white snow. The Snow Child's appearance resembles the original Snow White, however multiple features were exaggerated as a result of "the male gaze". "The male gaze" in this story come directly from the Count, where he visualizes the ideal child toward the opening of the story. However, after his "ideal child" appears before him, he succumbs to his own desires, using the child solely for his own pleasure. His hope for the child in the beginning of the story strongly contrasts with his actions towards the end, where Carter likely critiques the intentions of men wanting to materialize women.

• Within my life, I often feel like being caught in a state where I do not belong in specific areas or criteria. School is a great example of this, because while it urges me to excel in multiple areas, it also confuses me of what kind of person I am. Am I smart or not? Am I creative or not? Am I compassionate or not? I find myself answering the questions with I don't know very often because I think I am neither. The academic environment often contradicts with my original perception of myself, leading to a lot of confusion and difficulty with communication because of my wavering thoughts and inability to formulate this solid opinion/thought/idea/critique. I navigated this kind of feeling by taking time to reflect on myself and focus on what's enjoyable, such as my hobbies. In a way it helps me focus less on the irrelevant categorization that occurs to me and instead forces me to focus on things that are tangible and present. Over time, identifying my position became less of an issue because it no longer felt relevant to me. It doesn't really matter to be one way or the other, because things in life are always based on a spectrum, not two polar sides. I think this is also what carter is trying to convey in her short story, because Wolf-Alice is this girl with this duality of both humanity and wildness. She is a being who can't really be classified as human or wolf, she is in between these two races and has her unique way of interpreting and interacting with the world. Additionally, Wolf-Alice isn't the only one who showcases this kind of duality; the nuns and other human beings also showcases violent and fearful primal instincts, even beneath a "mask" of civilization. This suggests that "civilized" humans will also bear this duality in them, although it is not as evident. In general, Carter is trying to prompt readers to think about whether a boundary exists between human and animal, in turn proposing the possibility that they are a part of a spectrum.

• A while ago when I was in middle school, I remember witnessing this "fight" within my family that was deeply disturbing. Even though the scene was traumatizing and very uncomfortable for the 13-year-old me, I thought that with my traits and identity, I could mediate this quarrel. I "participated" in this quarrel by speaking as this neutral figure, and as my mom's daughter, I realized that this sort of role is especially powerful in terms of mediating and understanding the situation. I didn't do anything significant but this was a very important turning point in my psyche where I found my own strength in being a gentle person who mediates situations well. Carter's depiction of the girl is an example of finding strength, especially within the "constraints" of gender. In The Company of The Wolves, the "little red riding hood" does not fear her own sexuality and celebrates her own body in a way to reclaim power or find strength. Her act of taming the wolf also talks about how women are able to both assert power and gentleness.

I do not think I ever expressed this extreme duality in my personality, only the differences in internal thoughts and external behavior are present. I do believe that at some point I did try to suppress some aspects of my own persona because I didn't like them or find them troublesome, although I failed most of the time just like how The Countess fails to contain her hunger. For example, I used to force myself to socialize and verbalize my thoughts more but it was a stubborn and ineffective way of actually changing my reluctance (or even inability, occasionally,) to verbally communicate. I've forced myself to do similar things in order to change my habits, but then I learned that I should probably go with the flow and follow my impulses because at this point there's not much to lose. By the end of the story, I would argue whether The Countess completely chose the side of humanity. Throughout many stories in The Bloody Chamber, I feel like Carter is trying to explain how humanity and monstrosity lie on a spectrum, unlike a "true or false" statement. In my opinion, The Countess chose a position where she is at the center of this spectrum. Physically, she didn't really become more human (because she died a vampire), and mentally she understands her identity as a vampire and the fraction of personality that is more human-like. In a way, because of her choice, she could also be classified as an entity that lies nowhere in the discussion of humanity and monstrosity; she is merely being dominated by her own awareness to return herself to nature.

• Unlike the passive heroines of traditional tales, Carter’s Beauty undergoes a Gothic journey of self-awareness and growth. She starts as a character defined by societal ideals of feminine beauty and virtue but gradually becomes more active in shaping her destiny. Her return to the Beast at the story’s climax is framed not as a fulfillment of duty but as an act of genuine love and choice, reclaiming her agency. Beauty’s transformation is also significant: she evolves from a passive, duty-bound daughter into a self-aware woman who actively chooses her path. This shift highlights the potential for women to break free from societal stereotypes and embrace their desires and autonomy.

For example, When books disappear, the protagonist notes that people no longer remember their stories. This reflects historical instances of book burnings and censorship, where regimes attempt to control what people know and remember.

Another instance of this is when the protagonist notes how "Not one of them so much as turned to look at me, and my voice was lost in the pile of memories on the floor," it highlights the collective indifference toward loss. The imagery of discarded memories suggests that even personal experiences and emotions are subject to disappearance, leaving no space for resistance or mourning. The fact that no one reacts to her presence shows how deeply the regime has conditioned people to accept forgetting as inevitable. Her "lost voice" also symbolizes the broader suppression of identity, self-expression, and historical truth, in turn reinforcing how authoritarian rule silences both individual and collective memory.

The narrator's experience in The Memory Police highlights the extreme lengths that authoritarian regimes will go to in order to maintain control, using fear and force to suppress dissent and ensure obedience. When the protagonist witnesses a child being taken away by the Memory Police, she recounts, “‘Look at him. He’s just a child.’/ ‘Poor thing.’/ The old man and I held hands…as the Memory Police forced them into one of the trucks.” This moment underscores the indiscriminate nature of the regime’s oppression. The phrase “He’s just a child” highlights the inhumanity of the authorities, showing that even the most vulnerable are not spared. The disappearances orchestrated by the Memory Police serve as a method of erasing not only objects and memories but also any resistance to their authority. This reflects how oppressive governments rely on dehumanization and brutality to instill compliance in their citizens.