A Moon for the Misbegotten
When it comes to standing ovations, I'm old-fashioned. I think they should be reserved for truly outstanding performances. Nothing bugs me more than people who sit in their seat a while, then decide "Yea, I guess it's worth a standing ovation." If you're not absolutely propelled out of your seat by a performance, then sit down.When I saw A Moon for the Misbegotten a few years ago at the Hartford Stage Company, I leapt to my feet at the final curtain.
Here's why -- the love story, between Jim Tyrone and Josie Hogan, is beautiful, complex, and tormented. Now you take Romeo and Juliet: he was hot for her, she was hot for him; not much of a story, really. I can't tell you now about the nature of the characters or the relationship -- you'll have to discover that for yourself.
The play is set in Connecticut, of course. And the playwright, Eugene O'Neill is a Connecticut native. And he's a heavyweight.
Be sure to leave your name when you leave your response.
Okay, it looks like I'll be the first to comment for this one. I have very mixed emotions about A Moon for the Misbegotten. I enjoyed the fact that it was a play. It made for an exciting and imaginative scene and allowed me to visualize the characters more abstractly than ordinary books would allow. I also enjoyed how every sentence seemed to contrast the prior, making each sentence suspenseful and unexpected. However, I did not like how vague certain excerpts of the play were- in particular, the dialogue between Josie and Jim during their night under the moon. The way that Jim talks is very disjointed. I understand that it fits his character very well, but I never knew whether what he was saying really made sense. I was uncertain whether or not what Hogan tells Josie about the estate and his scheme at the end of the play was true. I also disliked the fact that I never understood whether Josie and her father were playfully mean or truly mean toward one another. It appeared that they were directly mad at the beginning, but playfully mean at the end. Did anybody catch that or can anyone clarify that?
ReplyDeleteThis is the first time I have ever read a whole book in one day, although this one was a play and not that long! Personally, I did not care for the story of Romeo and Juliet, but found that this story about two lovers was much more complex and intriguing. Even though this play takes place in 1923, I believe that the idea that Jim Tyrone truly loved Josie and could care less about his other lovers still exists today in our society. Boys will hook up with girls who put themselves out there, yet they will only truly respect the girl who can stand up for herself and her beliefs as a human being. Josie was real and Tyrone could see that. I think this play also had a theme of people are rarely what they seem at first glance. Josie was introduced as a massive, ugly woman who was known as a slut, but as the play went on we could see that she was more beautiful and innocent. Tyrone was a wealthy landowner and a drunk who went to Broadway to sleep with whores. When he was talking to Josie under the moon, Tyrone reveals himself as a man who uses alcohol to get away from reality after living a tragic life. There is one more character who we could view in a different perspective by the end of the play, Phil Hogan. I first got the impression that he was an unhappy, aggressive man, due to the fact that his third son was escaping because of his slave-like ways and as Josie calls him "the damnedest crook that ever came out of Ireland." Hogan, however, turns out to be sincere and does what he believes can help his daughter and even Tyrone. He only wanted to find Josie happiness and could care less about Tyrone's money. Eugene O'neill's play was an emotional, realistic piece of work with deep meaning.
ReplyDelete-Joanne Swanson
I agree with Joanne. I really enjoyed how the play had complex, realistic characters. I haven't really read any books that had a character like Josie Hogan. My impression of Josie changed as the play progressed. I initially thought she was a rough woman with no feelings for other people, but her relationship with Jim Tyrone changed that impression. She may be a fierce character, but she does have respect for other people and their situations.
ReplyDeleteI also enjoyed the banter between Josie and Phil Hogan. It was funny to read their insults to one another. I bet it's even more humorous when it's actually performed. I would love to see actors portray the rough and soft sides of Josie and Phil!
Hi guys! So, Dylan, I was kind of confused too, about, well, pretty much Jim's half of the third act. What was he talking about?? After I finished the whole play I took out a piece of paper and wrote down each topic he talked about the ways he acted and why, going through the book with a fine toothed comb. This helped. O'Neill just made scrambled eggs with it! I also think that Josie and her father always had an understanding, and even when it seemed like they really were being honestly mean and spiteful to each other, in their heart of hearts, they knew they had each other's backs. This is just my take on it.
ReplyDeleteThe thing about this play that really made me wonder was the very end. Josie and Jim are out in the open; they both know they're in love, and it seems like that night they both learned a few things about each other, and themselves. Jim says, "I'll never forget your love...I'll always love you, Josie!" And then he just walks away-and she lets him go! What the heck?! I thought about it, and maybe they can't love without that moon or at least with the memory of it fresh in their minds. Like, their love was never meant to last long, and they both knew it and didn't fight it and just loved for that one night and the following dawn. And then...went back to their lives. They- and their love- had each done as much for the other as they could. I think it’s so sad, and strange. But I guess love works in mysterious ways. Not to be a clichéd or anything...
After some reflection on this work, I realized that it is fairly similar not only to Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, but also to A Midsummer Night's Dream. The daytime brings about the characters' qualities that most people of the town know everyone by-- such as Hogan being the drunk cruel father, shown by Mike's departure-- while the night brings a loving ambiance between Josie and Jim Tyrone which reveals their "alter egos" and "true identities". Although this love story is not quite as comedic as A Midsummer Night's Dream, the idea of night versus day and love are common themes.
ReplyDelete-Dylan Schiff
I have just finished reading this book and I was surprised that I liked it. I usually don't like reading books in a play format, but this book is the exception. Josie and Phil Hogan's relationship was really interesting. I thought it was funny that Hogan hated his sons and wouldn't hesitate to threaten or actually whip them, but wouldn't touch or threaten Josie. I wonder if this is because she is a girl or because he is scared of her size and roughness. Personally, I think he's more scared of her size and roughness.
ReplyDeleteI always thought that Jim was genuine. He always wanted to be a gentleman when he was with Josie. He didn't want to bring other women into their night because he wanted it to be special and about just the two of them. He told her the truth when she asked about the blonde on the train and even though she promised to love him no matter what, after hearing what he did, she acted repulsed and he still understood. He was willing to leave if it made her happier.
I agree with Olivia. It would be really interesting to actually see this performed. Josie and Phil's conversations would be very entertaining.
Dylan, I never thought of that but that's a great connection!
ReplyDeleteI also think we should go on a field trip to see this performed this seeming to be the consensus so far! I kept trying to imagine how an actor might say a certain line, or what their body language could add to the story. It'd be interesting to see what we'd take away from it a second time, if we saw it on the stage.
I thought of another connection whgen I was listening to Frank Sinatra's "Blue Moon" (I love swing and big band music). Obviously the title, but some of the lyrics work too: "Blue moon You saw me standing alone Without a dream in my heart Without a love of my own...And then there suddenly appeared before me The only one my arms will ever hold..." (Lyrics by Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart).
ReplyDeleteSo call me a hopeless romantic, but I was so mad at the ending of this play. Honestly, why can no one ever end up with the people they love? It seems like too often we just let the people we really need in our lives go because we think it's what would be best for them, but who says that's really what would be best for them? Being loved and cared for is better than being cast off into the world, ready to die, just like Jim was. I would never be able to let someone go the way Josie did, but her actions did just prove how strong of a character she was, not only physically, but emotionally as well. And, even with all his rotten and lousy schemes, I was touched by the fact that the seemingly heartless Phil Hogan wanted to see his daughter be with the one she loved. It seems like the love his wife gave to him was rubbing off on him for the sake of his daughter. This play proves that even the most surprising people can believe in love. It also proves that everyone needs a confidant, someone they can trust with anything, someone who will always love and forgive them. It was good Josie and Jim had this together, even if it was for just one night. I agree with everyone who thinks we need to go see this play acted out. Even just when reading it, you could feel the liveliness of the characters and plot! It would be so great to actually experience it in person.
ReplyDelete-Sarah Anischik
I agree with you Sarah, I just don't totally get how, or why, they can let each other go like that. Can you explain this is class please, Mr. M?? It's sad and unfair, like I said before.
ReplyDeleteI definitely can see why some of you were mad that Jim and Josie didn’t end up together. I mean, they both had that social outcast factor, they both were interested in each other, and they even had the classic “we’re going to love each other and all will work out” setting toward the end of the book. It’s like everything was finally in their favor and it was perfect for them to have that sought after happy ending. But the thing is, real life doesn’t work like that. I know Sarah is going to fight me about this, but there are no happy endings in life, just bitter sweet moments that make it worth living.
ReplyDeleteIf the book had ended with Jim just running off with Josie, that would have been the biggest, sappiest load of crap. If you actually look at the facts, there was no way Josie and Jim could have ended up together and I think both Josie and Jim knew that. Josie was young and had a lot more life to live. Jim on the other hand was a worn out alcoholic with a huge amount of emotional baggage. Because he loved Josie, he would never keep her in his life and bring her down with himself. Also I don’t believe that Josie would leave her father to live with Jim. Yea, Josie and her father fought a lot, but that’s how they showed they loved each other.
I just really believe that because Josie and Jim cared so much about each other, they knew that they shouldn’t be together, so although it hurt, they went their separate ways for the well being of one another. The fact that they confessed their love for each other served almost as closure to a relationship that would have never worked.
I’m not going to say it‘s the ending I wanted. I did root for Josie and Jim to have this wonderful relationship that would end up saving their lives. I had sympathy for Jim when he told his story and I wanted so much for Josie to be his savior and help him get his life on the right track. I was upset when Josie and Jim parted at the end of the book cause I knew that Jim was going to end up dying and how awful Josie must have felt watching the man she loved go. But when I look back on this book, and how worked up I got with each passing page, I know that, although it wasn’t a story book finish, the realistic, emotionally charged ending was the best way for Josie and Jim’s story to come to a close.
--Melissa Kenney--
Ok, I think you guys have put my mind at ease more about the ending.
ReplyDeleteBeverly, I like what you said about how "O’Neill wants... for us to sort of resolve that we will not let ourselves get that emotionally out of shape." The idea that maybe it was partially meant as a lesson is comforting.
And Melissa, you're a genius. I was way too distracted by the fact that they didn't stay together to realize any of the stuff you said, but you're absolutely right; Jim being close to the end of his life (hinted at near the end of the play), her youth, his baggage, her father. I love your point that they went their separate ways because they loved each other.
Now, I don't think I'd change a thing about the ending; though knowing that they had closure makes me curious about what Josie will do with the rest of her life. I don't say "what will happen to Josie" because she isn't the kind of woman to let things happen to her- my kind of girl.
So my family and I are currently on a cross-country trip, and of course I brought my books along with me. We flew into Denver, and on the 6 hour plane ride I finished A Moon for the Misbegotten. I was surprised I finished it so quickly, but I then realized, like Dylan stated, that it is a play and it allows you to visualize and hear the characters more than ordinary novels. This I personally enjoyed and therefore was able to read and understand more quickly than say, Return of the Native. ;)
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree to the words that Melissa wrote. I enjoyed the play and even though it wasn't a Disney happy ending, it was the best ending that Josie and Jim could have. Although I also rooted for the both of them to share a wonderful relationship and save each others lives, the best solution would be for them to part. As Josie watched Jim stumble away early that morning, I wanted them to reunite but knew that this ending is a perfect fit to the play, making me left satisfied at its close.
I agree with everyone on how we should see this play if possible. I would love it if we were to have the chance to see it during the school year as a field trip! Adding character dynamics, sounds, and visuals would capture our eyes and minds and truly make this unique play come to life.
~Julia Lachut
I see what you mean Beverly, and now I realize that you're exactly right. It's just that (without pouring out my entire life story of my love life during junior year) I want someone to end up in a happy relationship. For me, I need to see something to believe it can happen for me too. I mean, if it's not going to happen in a book when all the circumstances can be exactly right, then how can anything good happen when life throws in random curveballs? And yes, Melissa, you are right. I will (try to) fight you on this. Melissa, you know about everything and you know how I am about always wanting a happily ever after. Maybe that's just my problem. I like load of crap, sappy endings. That's why I read Sarah Dessen novels and an occassional Nicholas Sparks novel. Everything should end up perfect, but you guys are right...it doesn't. That's why life is...life. So, I've I'm going to be truly honest with myself, like you have all said, the ending is satisfying to some degree, and it does fit perfectly with the feeling of the play.
ReplyDelete-Sarah Anischik
I just finished the second act and so far it's been disappointing. The only strong point of the play so far is the character development, but the plot seems very thin and boring. If it weren't for the depth of the main characters, I think it would be very difficult to finish the play. I do enjoy the banter between Hogan and Josie, which keeps my interest most of the time. I think the new conflicts arising with ownership of the farm will make the plot more interesting. I think another reason that I have not enjoyed the plot as much as I would like is that this play is really meant to be watched and not read, and so I would be interested in actually seeing this play.
ReplyDelete-Alex Clifford
Sarah, now I feel terrible that I’m being so down about happy endings and seeming like a pessimist. I like real life happy endings, and sometimes book happy endings. It can be good to be a hopeless romantic…and sometimes there really are happy endings. It might end up perfect. Optimism is good!
ReplyDeleteI have an incredibly random comparison that really struck me about this play that I just have share, despite its randomness. The first thing I noticed about A Moon for the Misbegotten was how many similarities it shares with Gone with the Wind (the book, I haven’t seen the movie but I think it’s pretty good so it probably shares these with the movie too). It isn’t so much plot similarities as it is character relationship similarities. I just finished reading Gone with the Wind, which I’m sure is why these jumped out at me, but it really was a lot of similarities so I wanted to share (I won’t go into detail on the Gone with the Wind ones so I don’t spoil it for anyone, but if you haven’t read Gone with the Wind you definitely should).
1. Both have Irish fathers who sing and bellow loudly
2. Both have people drinking a lot (but bragging about how they can keep their heads when drunk)
3. Both have a physically and emotionally strong heroine (okay, for Scarlett this is debatable, but at times she shows emotional strength and after the war she shows physical strength). The heroines are also both the kind of women who will do something about life, and not just let life occur and get swept along with the tide.
4. In both the heroine is the most like her father of any of her siblings
5. Both women will do nearly anything to keep their land (Josie agrees to deceive Jim even though she loves him to try to keep the farm)
6. One character is/becomes emotionally “dead” because of the loss of a loved one
7. Both women love (or “love”, in Scarlett’s case) men who say they love them but they are not able to be together, either because they are an emotional wreck (Jim) or because their honor does not allow them to or they are scared or really different (Ashley…who is a guy if you didn’t know) (I know that this is an extreme oversimplification of both relationships)
8. Both stories are love stories that end sadly
I also read in a bio of O’Neill that he was raised by a peasant-y Irish father and a mother who had “genteel, mystical piety”…sound like Scarlett O’Hara’s parents, anyone? I read that in all his plays he draws from personal experience, so that could color the way he wrote Josie, and maybe having parents like that makes people turn out similarly. In addition, he wrote in the 1920s-40s (Moon was first performed in 1947), which is around the time GWTW was written (published 1936). Maybe the same external influences influenced both these authors? Gone with the Wind is a lot more complex than A Moon for the Misbegotten and has a lot more characters (as well as being 6.79 times longer by pages), so there’s a lot more to it and it has a lot of subplots that are nothing like Moon, but it kind of works if you only look at parts of it. I will also admit that there are some definite dissimilarities.
-Beverly Naigles
I agree with just about everyone that I would get a lot more out of this play if I saw it performed. There are just so many nuances that are hard to catch in a written version of a play that make watching a play so much more rewarding than reading it. In general, my favorite way to experience a story is by reading it, but with this one I think that seeing it would be better. On a side note, Mr. MacArthur, I totally agree with you about standing ovations when people sit there and then decide to stand up because other people are or give standing ovations for like half of the performances at a recital. I sit there and I am like I stand up if it is amazing and nothing short of the best thing I have heard or seen in a while.
ReplyDeleteI really liked the banter between Josie and Phil; it made me laugh.
I thought it was cool how Josie was very fierce but she has two soft spots…her land and Jim, and she will forgive Jim for practically everything (not involving the land). Whenever she was confronted with issues about either, she either melted (“Pityingly ‘Poor Jim’” (page 30)) or got really confrontational (when Phil says Jim loves her or when Phil says the land has been sold). It is interesting how in similar situations she has what could be considered diametrically opposite reactions.
-Beverly Naigles
When I used to complain to my mom that something wasn't fair, she'd tell me, "Life's not fair."
ReplyDeleteTo all my hopelessly romantic THS Honors English students out there, required to read and interpret /A Moon for the Misbegotten/, I have this nugget of wisdom for you: Life is not fair. Sometimes you look like a cow with beautiful eyes and beautiful breasts. Sometimes the man you love is a drunkard who is emotionally dead. Sometimes you hold someone all through the night, beneath the light of moon, only to watch them walk away in the morning. Sometimes your father is a scam artist.
Life isn't fair, but sometimes, beauty can be found in the love that survived those few brief moments - those moments before you make a realization like: "God forgive me, it's a fine end to all my scheming, to sit here with the dead hugged to my breast, and the silly mug of the moon grinning down, enjoying the joke!"
I strongly dislike commentary. Introductions agitate me. I want to read the meat of the play, experience it, feel it. Then maybe I'll care what Mr. Stephen A. Black has to say about Josie's dynamic character or the author's "capacity to create the condition in which conflicting ways of trying to perceive realities collide against each other". I don't care that "at the end of /Moon/ the audience knows that Josie has learned from Jim Tyrone's dreadful story that wherever her life is to go, she can no longer continue to be simply aide and audience to her father's schemes and jokes, and that the world is far different from what she has let herself know of it. First she must mourn. Then she may begin to learn." Why do they put those things at the beginning of the book?
So after I angrily skimmed the introduction, I began reading a deliciously descriptive setting for a story. "The house had once been painted a repulsive yellow with brown trim..." Ha! The author has seen where I live! I read about the old boxlike, clapboarded affair and the scraggly orchard of apple trees - then I set the book down. Did you ever start reading about the setting and stop? As I just confessed, I've done it. Sometimes I want to play with the mental image of a place before I know what happens there; before I meet the characters. Who lives there? What profound thing happens there? --- Something so profound that my soon-to-be-English-teacher feels we need to read about it. Was he right? Or am I going to have to suffer through it? Sometimes I get pleasure from prolonged curiosity, other times I can't keep my eyes open long enough to finish a paragraph.
It was a mixture of these things. Time passed. When the book was in my hands again, I skipped entirely over the introduction and back to the page where my eyes last rested. A beautiful thing happened. The dialogue arrived - and I fell in love with reading.
I extend my undying appreciation and admiration to Mr. Eugene O'Neill (aka, the author) for his profound ability to capture the essence of his characters. They were nitty gritty. I wasn't at the play, but I could feel their presence. I could see them. Tangible.
Like I said - the Dialogue. Incredible. Josie, Act I: "You're worse than decent. You're virtuous." "Och, a cow must have kicked you in the head this morning." Hogan, Act I: "May he roast in hell and his Limey superintendent with him!" "It's the landlord again, and my shotgun not handy." "It's easy to see you've a fine college education. It must be a big help to you, conversing with whores and barkeeps."
mis•be•got•ten/ˌmisbəˈgätn/Adjective
1. Badly conceived, designed, or planned: "a misbegotten journey".
2. Contemptible (used as a term of abuse).
The story was wonderfully conceived, designed, and planned. Life is not. That's what I learned.
-Samantha A. M@!rs0n
I just finished reading Act 1 and I already have a couple thoughts to share…
ReplyDeleteMy first thought: I am very impressed with the way in which this story is written, I love that it is, in fact, a play. Being able to read full, direct descriptions of a character and their actions, paints a much more detailed illustration of the person. For example, Josie's body language and tone of voice definitely contribute to her image as a tough, rough around the edges women. I particularly enjoyed being able to see the characters in a different light.
My second thought: I believe the relationship between Josie and Jim Tyrone is one of the most unique and complex bonds I have ever read about. Even though I have only scratched the surface on this relationship, I can already tell I am going to soon be captivated by the two lovers. In addition to this, Josie's father is already playing a very significant role in the relationship and I know that that will only add to the complexity.
I am very eager to find out what sort of relationship is going to blossom between Josie and Jim Tyrone and what additional conflicts may arise!
-Dakota Gagliardi
I just finished reading A Moon for the Misbegotten, and I thought the play style fit the book very nicely, with its character descriptions and dialogue. The unique dialogue, in my opinion, was what made the good play, great. All the characters, especially, Josie, and her father, Phil Hogan (apple doesn’t fall far from the tree), have witty, sarcastic little remarks and comments to each other. Josie: “Shut up your noise, you crazy old billy goat!” Hogan: “A sweet daughter and a sweet welcome home in the dead of night. Old goat! There’s respect for you!”
ReplyDeleteI can understand why some are upset that Josie Hogan and Jim Tyrone didn’t end up together by the end of the play. I guess, it depends on the person, whether you’re someone that likes the perfect fairytale ending where the characters fall madly in love, run off, get married, and live happily ever after or you’re someone that prefers the more realistic version. Maybe this also depends on whether one might believe in that fairytale ending, in life. Me personally, I like the more realistic books, movies, play, etc. Maybe it’s because I feel as though I can connect with it better. This is why I can say, that I did like how A Moon for the Misbegotten ended with Josie and Jim Tyrone going their separate ways, even though they did love each other. They were drawn to each other by their weaknesses and insecurities. Josie had her insecurities about her physical appearance while Jim was greatly “wounded” by the loss of his mother, and that he needed “saving”, this is where Josie came in. This was a very different kind of romantic story, not the happily ever after kind necessarily, the kind where both lovers, in the end, “save each other.” Josie and Jim both found each other when they were in distress. Jim and Josie were both able to see past all the lies, rumors, judgments and stereotypes and find that they both genuinely cared about each other.
Joanne: I agree with you when you said guys will respect a girl more when they stand up for themselves, stand up for what they believe in, and also a girl who respect themselves.
Julia: I agree that it was the best ending Josie and Jim could have had. And I think a field trip sounds like a GREAT idea. It would be interesting to be able to see how reading the play versus watching the play compares.
Dylan: I can see how you might be confused about the relationship between Josie and her father but my opinion is, is that it’s like a love/hate relationship. As is any parent/daughter relationship, at times, because sometimes you’re not always going to see eye to eye and might disagree with each other. Josie might not have necessarily been truly mad at her father, just annoyed, but she learned (just as everyone does as they go through life) to respect each other’s difference of opinion but most importantly love them anyways. I don’t think Josie could have actually hated her father.
~Megan Vatteroni
POST #1 - PART 1
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to A Moon for the Misbegotten, I have decided to post a comment for each Act, just so that I can go back and reread everything once I have finished the entire play. I want the story to be straight in my head. Easier for me to comprehend it this way (although so far it's pretty simple).
KEEP IN MIND THAT I HAVEN'T READ ANY PREVIOUS POSTS. I don't want anything ruined!
FIRST IMPRESSIONS:
Well, from the brief summary that Mr. MacArthur gave us on the summer assignment sheet, I felt pretty good about having to read this. It actually sounded interesting, and it has proved to be so (so far)! I am pleasantly surprised with this year's summer books. Of course, I haven't started The Return of the Native yet, so we'll see if my opinion changes. Anyways, back to AMFTM. I seemed to somehow have missed the word 'play' on the summer reading sheet, so when I found this book at Barnes and Noble (after finally asking my brother to help me find where it was) I was pretty upset about the fact that I had to read a play. I think I recall saying something along the lines of, "Ughhh! Not a play! What is Mr. MacArthur doing to us?!" BUT, I have to say that I love it so far! Really, I love it! I hope that as I read, this opinion of mine will stay the same, but we'll see. Before starting to read the play, I thought the accent would be hard to understand, but it's not at all! Being 25% Irish myself, I love how every so often words such as blarney or blather will be said by one of the characters. I also thought that the constant dialogue between all different characters would get confusing, but this book has totally abolished all of my prejudgements that I had about it, which I am very happy about.
For starters, I am so appreciative of the italics in this play. Of course, all plays have descriptions written in italics, but for this play in particular, I think that the author does an excellent job with his frequent, but not overbearing usage of italics. I especially love the descriptions of each new character. It is so easy to picture Josie, as well as all of the other cast members. I think that the author uses such perfect words to describe the emotions that a character is feeling at a certain time, and it really helps me to enjoy the book even more than I already do.
- Liz Elliott
POST #1 - PART 2
ReplyDeleteCHARACTERS:
Josie: To begin with, I can't express how nice and refreshing it was to read that this girl is five feet eleven with an oversized build and fierce independence. I think that so many characters, as well as countless "real-life" people, feel as though they need to fit into a mold which is unrealistic to them, and it's just so wonderful to see how empowered Josie is. She's a little bit quirky and not so glamorous, and I love it. She is willing to stand up for what she believes in, and I think that her attitude serves as a great example of what a strong female mind is like.
Mike: As I was reading the brother/sister interaction between Mike and Josie, I couldn't help but relate these two characters to my brother (named Michael-coincidence?) and myself. Even though we have our disagreements, we are always there for each other at the end of the day. In the play, Josie helped Mike escape to something better, and made an incredible sacrifice just so that he could move on to greater things. I loved reading how the two were poking fun at one another, calling each other names, and then how sentimental their departure from each other was. It was cute.
Phil Hogan: Is this guy bipolar? I'm serious. If someone could weigh in on this, that would be great. When he was having his conversation with Josie right after Mike left, the italics would go from saying "baffled" to "rising temper" to "seething" to "forgets his anger" to "outraged" to "furiously" to "threateningly" to "bitterly" to "grinning admiringly and laughing." Did anyone else pick up on this or am I reading too much into the italics? I feel as though Hogan is all over the place. He uses such fowl language toward Josie, and I don't even get the feeling that she gets upset. Does anyone else think that this could possibly be their way of communicating to one another? I don't really know what to think about Hogan as of right now. I love him and I hate him at the same time. I think that he and his daughter have a pretty great tag-team thing going on, but at the same time, I don't fully understand their relationship yet. We'll see.
Jim Tyrone: Hmm..what to say about Jim Tyrone. Well, I hope that he and Josie work out. I think that she can help him get over whatever situation it is that is causing him to drink so much. I don't know what to think about this guy either. When he was sitting talking with Hogan, I didn't like him. He seemed pretty cocky to me. But then when Josie joined Tyrone and Hogan outside, Tyrone seemed to loosen up, and I grew a little bit of a liking toward him. I like how he jokes around with Josie. Even though she might not be the most beautiful girl, I think that she has a great soul, and I can't wait to find out what is going to happen between these two lovebirds.
T. Stedman Harder: Five words- Harder got served by Hogan. Plain and simple. I'm pretty sure it took me less than a minute to read through the argument between Harder and Hogan because it was so intense! I knew that Hogan was gutsy, but the way he spoke to Harder was great! Harder was speechless! I loved it. He had it coming to him though. I look forward to finding out his role in the rest of the play.
- Liz Elliott
I finished this book about a week ago and I was disappointed with it. I felt like the plot went nowhere. It started out with Josie and Phil having their tempered relationship and it ended the same way. I was hoping Josie would finally have someone to spend her life with besides her father, but then Jim just left. They obviously loved each other and yet nothing happened. The events that happened in the middle of the play, however, were amusing. The "chat" between Phil and Harder was funny and I liked how Harder just didn't know what to do other than to leave. If I was ever in that position, I would probably think he was joking.
ReplyDeleteThat last scheme that Phil and Josie created was really confusing. I don't know what to believe. I can see Phil scheming against the original scheme for the money. He loves to drink and alcohol costs a lot to drink every single day. It wouldn't surprise me at all if his plan was to use his daughter to get the money. On the other hand, I can also see him doing it for Josie. He said he schemed against the scheme to make Josie happy. He wanted her to finally get to be with her love. It is a fatherly thing to do, but he has never acted very fatherly to her, which makes me skeptical of this reason for his scheme.
I do have to say that I liked this play more than I thought I would. It was entertaining, but the ending was disappointing.
POST #3
ReplyDeleteI just finished with Act II and I must say that for awhile, I thought it was just going to be thirty pages of fighting between Drunk Phil Hogan and Josie. I was pleasantly surprised when I came to the final few pages of this act, when things really started to pick up, finally! I can't wait to find out how Josie's plan against Tyrone is going to unravel, and whether or not it will even work!
TEXT TO TEXT CONNECTION:
The only part from this act which truly sticks out in my mind was on page 76 when Josie's father said to her: "He's [Tyrone] going to leave you alone and not see you again--for your sake, because he loves you!" Phil Hogan said that Tryone doesn't want to tempt himself, and that is why he can't be with Josie. Now, of course Josie doesn't believe that this is true, but when I first read this quotation in the book, my immediate thought was, "Oh my God, Edward Cullen did the exact same thing!" For anyone who has been living under a rock for the past few years and HASN'T read New Moon yet, Edward leaves Bella for one reason and one reason only, and that is because he truly loves her. Edward knows in his heart that he must leave Bella (and his love for her) behind, in order for her to live. Now, in A Moon for the Misbegotten, whether or not Tyrone truly meant what he said in the Inn about his love for Josie, I don't know yet. It seems to me that he loves Josie, but he could very well just playing her. I suppose I'll just have to keep reading to find out what happens: Does Tryone have a hidden agenda, or is his love for Josie the real deal?
- Liz Elliott
A FUN LINK FOR EVERYONE TO CHECK OUT:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlinN0NOtGA
This is the song that Phil Hogan sang in Act II on his way back home from the Inn. I'm sure that this version has been slightly remixed with the electric guitar and the faster tempo throughout the middle, but I imagine that the slower parts of the song are similar to the way that Hogan probably sang it. Enjoy!
- Liz Elliott
ACT III
ReplyDeleteI don't know about everyone else, but I think that deep down inside, Jim is an incredibly sweet, sensitive, and kind person. I think he puts on a huge front to appear strong and courageous to everyone, but as he demonstrated at the end of this act, he isn't afraid to cry, which is something I liked seeing from him. While reading this act, I found myself saying, "Aww!" to many of the things that Jim was saying to Josie. I'm sure the liquor might have played a role in his flattering comments to her, but I feel as though he was very sincere in what he was saying. Here are two examples of ADORABLE Jim quotations that I highlighted while reading this act:
Jim to Josie: "You're beautiful to me."
Jim to Josie: "You're a fool to be jealous of anyone. You're the only woman I care a damn about."
NOTE: for any guy reading this, girls LOVE hearing this kind of stuff ;)
Anyways, there were a few parts in this act which really stick out in my mind as I go back to review what I have just read. Here they are:
WHEN JIM TYRONE SAYS THAT PHIL HOGAN IS THE ONLY REAL FRIEND HE'S GOT LEFT, EXCEPT FOR JOSIE:
As I said earlier in this post, I think that Jim tries to appear stronger than he really is, and when he was sitting on the porch with Josie confessing different aspects of his life to her, it was so refreshing to read about him being so real and so honest. Maybe I just see all of the good and none of the bad in him, but it appears as though Jim truly does love Phil as if he were his own father.
WHEN JIM TYRONE DISCUSSED THE TYPE OF PERSON HE HAS BEEN SINCE HIS MOTHER PASSED AWAY:
Again, the wall which Jim figuratively built around himself has been broken down once he confesses all about the things which have been eating at him. Jim made so much sense when he said that he spent time with the blonde from the train because he "wanted revenge" because he'd been "left alone" because he "was lost, without any hope left" and that all he could do was "drink himself to death" because "no one was left who could help him." At this moment in Act III, my heart ached for Jim. For me, it was so sad to read about how deserted he felt after the passing of his mother. I wanted to give him a big hug, but Josie did so instead! I believe that Jim reached his pivotal climax during his confessional in this act.
I thought it was slightly comical when Josie kept having to "check herself" about what she was saying to Jim while they were chatting with one another. She didn't want him to know all that her father had told her just minutes prior, and I thought it was funny how she kept almost slipping up. Her attitude would instantly change if Jim said something in particular, but she did a good job of recovering herself so that he would think she didn't know anything.
One Act left! I can't wait to see how this play ends.
- Liz Elliott
My favorite part about finishing these summer reading books is getting to read all of the comments before mine, which I will do right after I write this post.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the ending was well-done, but looking back on the entire book, if someone were to ask me, "Oh, what is the play about?" I have realized that I don't really know how to answer that question. Of course this play had a story line, but I think that it was pretty weak. Granted it was a play, and a short one at that, but I just don't think it had a lot of depth. BUT, with all of that being said, I still really enjoyed reading it.
I wish that Jim and Josie could've lived happily ever after. Their ending seemed so perfect, with him waking up in her arms and all, but then I thought that it was so sad when they had to part ways.
I must admit, I didn't quite pick up on the fact that Phil Hogan had been putting on his drunken act as a part of his personal scheme, but when Josie uncovered his lies, everything made a lot more sense to me. The whole story finally 'clicked' in my head as Josie was dishing out the truth to her father, which was something that I felt stood true to who Josie is: honest and raw. I loved how she was exposing the lies and exaggerations that her father had told. As I was reading, I was talking to myself in my head yelling, "You go, Josie!" Her father needed to hear everything that she had to say to him, and I think that things will definitely be different (but better) in their household.
I was glad that Jim was finally able to be at peace with himself and his "lousy life," and it was nice to read that he felt as though "all of his sins had been forgiven." I loved how Josie told him that their particular dawn was "different from all the others" which is certainly true. It was the kind of morning that Jim always wanted to wake up to, and to me, it was beautiful that he was able to experience it with Josie.
At the very end of this act, Josie's father became a real person to me, not just another character in a play. In my opinion, when Phil was saying how he just wanted Josie to find happiness, and that it was Jim's talk of beauty in Josie that gave him hope, and how he wants her to live in ease and comfort for a change, Phil evolved from a raging alcoholic to a kind and caring father.
Mr. MacArthur - you said that you jumped to your feet after you saw this play, and after reading it, now I really want to see it acted out live!
In the end, I would give this play a rating of 8/10. I thought some parts were wonderful, while at other times I just wanted to fast forward to the exciting stuff. All in all, I think that it was a great summer reading assignment; it wasn't the best (Goldengrove took that title) but it was definitely one of my favorites.
- Liz Elliott
MY COMMENTS TO OTHER COMMENTS:
ReplyDeleteDylan: I also enjoyed the fact that we got to read a play for summer reading. When I first saw that A Moon for the Misbegotten was a play, I was so unhappy about it, but as I was reading, I liked it more and more. It was a nice change from the usual summer novel. I agree with what you said about some of the dialogue being confusing and what was real and what wasn't. Particularly when it came to the estate. I just couldn't get certain stories straight, and the drunken dialogue didn't help much. As for your comment about the insults between Josie and her father, as I said in one of my posts, I think that it's just their way of communication, no matter how foreign it might be to all of us reading it. In my opinion, an insult to them isn't the same as what an insult is to us.
Joanne: I'm going to have to disagree with you and say that I liked Romeo and Juliet a lot more than this story, but maybe that's only because R&J is a CLASSIC. Haha! Also, you made an incredibly valid point about judging the characters in the beginning, which is exactly what I did, and in the end, I was totally wrong about each and every one of them.
Olivia: I agree with what you said about Josie evolving as the book went on. I think that she and Jim brought out the best (and softer sides) in each other, which I thought was very refreshing to read after some of the harshness which they each demonstrated earlier in the play.
Kelsey: I totally agree with what you said about the dialogue between Josie and her dad. They may have said some pretty harsh and hurtful things to one another, but they had each others backs in the end. And yes, their whole "I love you" "I love you" "Bye" "Bye" thing was weird. As I said in one of my other posts, I wanted them to live happily ever after! Wishful thinking, I suppose.
Dylan (again): WOW, GREAT CONNECTION TO A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM. I never even thought about that, but you are definitely right. The two ARE very similar, now that I look back on each of them. Good thinking!
Katie: I agree. I liked this play, even though I didn't think I would. Jim definitely had his "Aww, what a great guy!" moments, which I thought were very cute, but I'm not sure if he had ENOUGH of them to outweigh the fact that he loved drinking so much.
Kelsey (again): YES. FIELD TRIP. I WANT TO SEE THIS PLAY SO BADLY. While reading, I also would imagine certain parts of the play, and who they would cast as each character. Now I want to see how accurate my mental predictions would be.
Sarah: Read my first comment to Kelsey in this post. All I wanted was for them to live happily ever after! You're right about Josie being strong physically, mentally, and emotional. Don't you think she's a great role model for us girls? I also couldn't help but love Phil in the end; the stuff that he was saying to Josie about how he wanted her to be happy and content in her life was just so sweet!
Melissa: "There are no happy endings in life, just bitter sweet moments that make it worth living." DANG MELISSA. That was impressive! Senior Quote worthy right there! And - "...that would have been the biggest, sappiest load of crap." HAHAHAHAHAHA! You have great quotations on here, Melissa. I'm not going to write out all of the different aspects that you touched on in your post, but you made A LOT of very valid points. I agree with your ideas about many of the things that you wrote. Even though I wanted Jim and Josie to end up together, you kind of made me change my mind a little. BUT ONLY A LITTLE. Haha. Just as Kelsey said, I was way too distracted by the fact that they didn't stay together to realize any of the stuff you said. Nice job!
NOTE: Why am I not seeing Beverly's original post?
- Liz Elliott
MORE OF MY COMMENTS TO OTHER COMMENTS:
ReplyDeleteSarah: "I need to see something to believe it can happen for me too." AMEN. Man, you and Melissa are killing me with these quotations of yours! Haha.
Alex: I agree with you 100% - the plot was kind of thin and boring, and the only thing that kept it going was the characters. But then again, I guess the characters ARE the plot? Maybe someone could weigh in on this.
Beverly: I agree that seeing this play would give a totally different perspective than just reading it. I want to actually HEAR the insult wars between Josie and her father, not just READ them!
Sam: I love the way that you write. You're so comedic with the way you word certain things. Anyways, I must confess that I did the same thing that you did and I looked up the true definition for 'misbegotten' after I finished reading the play. THEN the title made a lot more sense to me, since MY mental definition of 'misbegotten' was MUCH different than what dictionary.com had to tell me. Great minds think alike, Sam! :)
After reading through everyone's comments, I realized that Josie is KIND OF similar to Aaron. They each tried to help their "significant other" get over a death: Josie tried to help Jim with the death of his mother, while Aaron "tried" to "help" Nico get over the death of her sister (and vice-versa I suppose). It's not the greatest comparison, since Aaron was basically a weirdo mental patient, but it kind of works I guess...
- Liz Elliott
Liz (and everyone else), I have no idea why my first comment disappeared. Maybe we have an invasion of the comment snatchers! Therefore, even though it's going to seem really out of context, I'm going to post it again. This was originally posted either right before or right after (I don't remember which and I can't tell from reading it) Melissa's first post. Here goes:
ReplyDeleteOn both what Sarah said here about how no one ends up with the people they love and what Heather said in the comments of Goldengrove about happy vs unhappy endings, I think that authors know that the unhappy endings hit you harder and you remember them (this is basically what Heather said) and so that's why they use them. I think this might be why a lot of love stories end sadly. Romeo and Juliet die, Catherine and Heathcliff never marry and Heathcliff becomes kind of obsessed, Rhett leaves Scarlett and so Scarlett has ruined her own love life (I just finished rereading Gone with the Wind and I have some strong opinions about Scarlett O'Hara), Gatsby never marries Daisy, and Josie and Jim go their separate ways. On the happy ending side, I have that Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy get married and live happily ever after (maybe this occurs in other Austen books too; Pride and Prejudice is the only one I've read). Janie Crawford does have a good love life until Tea Cake dies (but then he does die so that doesn't end amazingly), and okay, in Twilight they get married and live happily ever after, but that’s Twilight we’re talking about and Twilight never made me think or hit me especially hard or made me remember it. If you think about the books that we read in English, most of them have sad endings. I think these sad endings are the ones that really touch you and make you think about them. There are stories that end happily; we just call them fairy tales. So Sarah, I think that O’Neill wants the reader to feel how tragic this is and for it to really stick with the reader and for us to sort of resolve that we will not let ourselves get that emotionally out of shape. If it ended happily, it would just be like okay, what’s past doesn’t matter because now it’s all good. I don’t think it would be as memorable or affect the reader’s life so much. So, even though it was sad that they did not stay together, I think it was a fitting ending.
-Beverly Naigles
I just finished reading Goldengrove and it just made me realize how much I truely loved this ending. Although it was sad and it upset many that Josie and Jim didn't end up together, it made you feel something. It's ending was well thought out and well developed, so that the futures of Jim and Josie were hinted at, but not spelt out to the reader. It gave that little room for your own imagination to fill in what would happen to each as they split paths. However in Goldengrove, the ending was basically spoon fed to you, leaving no room for the imagination, or for any excitement for that matter. This book was truely one of my favorites.
ReplyDeleteI do have to admit that I was slightly turned off to the book at first because it had to do with a bunch of alcoholics. It seems like almost every English book has to have an alcoholic in it somewhere, so I really thought it was going to be another painstakingly boring play, but it wasn't. It was a nice change from the expected.
-Melissa Kenney
Since my previous post, which I wrote just based on Act I, my thoughts on this play have significantly changed. Although I still enjoy that the story is written in play form, now that I have completed the play, I think that there is a serious lack of substance. I often found myself looking for more and most times I did not get what I wanted. However, I do believe there was a good story idea present but it just wasn’t carried out to its fullest potential.
ReplyDeleteThe relationship between Josie and Jim Tyrone did begin to blossom, yet it seemed to hit a wall not far after its start. The one night they spent together was frustrating to me because it was so back and forth and there did not seem to be any progress whatsoever. I was hopeful there would be a surprise of some sort, but it was very predictable.
Luckily, I found the dialogue between the characters very captivating and amusing so I was able to stick it out until the end and also get a few laughs.
Besides the dialogue, there was not much in this play that I enjoyed. I was hoping for more drama surrounding Josie and Jim’s relationship, as well as surrounding the issue of the farm. I would say this play was average, not my favorite summer reading book but definitely not my least favorite either.
-Dakota Gagliardi
I just finished reading Act I and although I never really liked reading books written in play format, this book already seems different. I love the light and comical mood and tone, and how the characters are each described in their own introductions. I really like the character Josie, she seems confident and aware of the power she has. The fact that there seems to be a sense of female dominance pulls me into the book. In most books that are written about the early 1900's, males are always in charge and the women were there just to make them happy. But clearly not in this book. Mike is Josie's younger brother but he is afraid of her. He pleads her not to hit him and says that she is the only one that can reason with their father.
ReplyDeleteWhich brings up another point. I was so shocked when I first read the dialogue exchanged between Josie and Hogan. Even if they were joking around with each other, how could you talk like that to your dad?! Calling him an ugly little buck goat and having him call you a slut and cow! I just found it really humorous. I know for a fact that even if I was playing around with my dad I wouldn't talk to him like that. But even though Josie and Hogan spoke in that manner, I could tell they cared and respected each other by their actions. Hogan never hit his daughter even after she stole money from him and apparently they worked together to rip people off.
And I've only read a little into the relationship between Josie and Jim Tyrone but it's already interesting. I'm looking forward to reading about what happens to these two!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading previous posts and after a couple days of reflection on this story I have a few remaining thoughts:
ReplyDeleteLiz: in my opinion, the plot was very boring, but the characters were rather unique. I guess you could say that the characters could possibly be the story, however still not much happened to the characters… it’s definitely challenging to pin point an EXACT story line. Also, I agree with you that Aaron and Josie are only slightly similar. The way they helped someone get over a loss was similar but then again extremely different. The situation between Aaron and Nico and between Josie and Jim both involved a death to a close family member but Aaron was kind of crazy, and Josie was more innocent in offering her help. I don’t know, just something to continue to think about…
Also, my position on the ending continues to change each time a new comment is made! I liked it, then I didn’t like it but still respected it, and now I’m not completely sold on the ending. After reading other’s comments, I agree with Sarah, no one ever ends up with who they are supposed to be with. Maybe it’s not as clear to the characters as it usually is to the reader, but I am not happy with Josie and Jim going their separate ways, when it was so obvious that they were meant to be together. I guess I understand the reason they did not end up together was because it needed to be demonstrated how strong Josie truly was but even tough women deserve and need love. I’m almost positive my opinion will change again within the next couple days!
Lastly, I realize I previously stated I was not a fan of this play, however, that also keeps changing! I’m starting to see more behind the actually play itself and into the characters. I have gained a new appreciation for this story.
-Dakota Gagliardi
I enjoyed the different points of view the author provided for us about the same episode within the same story. An example of this was the episode when the farm ownership was in question. We first heard from Hogan when he told them Tyrone was backstabbing them and selling the farm. He and Josie then developed a plan to get back at him. Finally, Tyrone arrived and gave them a totally different story and explained that there was no malice intended.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Alex in saying the banter between Josie and Hogan was enjoyable. I think they felt better insulting each other, while still loving each other inside.
In my opinion, I believe that Acts II and III could have been condensed. Act two consisted of lots of questioning and answering between Hogan and Josie, while as the reader, I knew what the plan was the whole time. Overall I think this was very well written, especially for a play.
-David Della Camera
Oh dear. Confession number one: I am intimidated. Intimidated by the enormous number of comments that have accumulated since my last visit to this blog page. You have all given this play a brilliant amount of thought. You'll have to excuse my tangent, but it must be something exquisite - to have people read what you write and examine it so thoroughly. Something exquisite, or something completely and entirely horrible. Since I do not have the willpower to read through every comment on this page (bless you, Elizabeth Elliott), I will respond to David. Poor David, my apologies in advance.
ReplyDelete"Overall I think this was very well written, especially for a play." What DOES that mean? Even for a play? I happen to think that the play was well written. For a play, or for any piece of literature. How many plays have you read, David? Have you been force fed Shakespeare? Have you really really read one. The characters, the uncondensed diologue is the most rewarding part. Close your eyes. Really SEE it. Am I being cheesy? Or are you following my advice? Because you should follow my advice. Experience the diologue when you're reading it, make the characters into people you know.
Alright, now that David has recieved some quacky advice from a peer, I will move on. To the rest of you! I think you're crazy. Confession number two: I may not have read every comment, but I certainly have skimmed! Curiousity got the best of me. The experience was something along the lines of being mangled in literary barbed wire. This is where I got tangled up: Love. You're all reading this play, trying to make sense of the unhappy ending. Blah blah blah, Josie not with Tyrone, blah blah blah, wierd but loving relationship with father, blah. Why isn't anyone happy? Blah. The revoltingly beautiful part of the story is its harsh grip on reality. Josie and Tyrone don't skip off into the sunset, but why should that make them less of characters? Josie and her father don't hold hands and say prays at the dinner table, but doesn't that make the MORE interesting. MORE real.
"I was so shocked when I first read the dialogue exchanged between Josie and Hogan. Even if they were joking around with each other, how could you talk like that to your dad?! Calling him an ugly little buck goat and having him call you a slut and cow! I just found it really humorous. I know for a fact that even if I was playing around with my dad I wouldn't talk to him like that." Alright, Confession Number 3: I'm secretly going back and reading the comments more completely when I run out of things to rant about. I hope my extra reading is making me more credible. You are all saying magnificent things. Things that spark my curiousity, things that spark my interest, things that I agree with, and things that I most certainly do not agree with. I stole a chunk of the aforementioned comment (Kim^3) because it made me laugh, chuckle, huff, and puff. Let's take a moment to put our personal Tolland-cookie-cutter family relationships aside.
-Samantha Ann Mairson ...
(continued) Ohhhh grrrrr. Someone stop me, I scrolled back up and read more of your bashing. You bashed this play! Well good for you. And I really mean that, you did good bashing - but then you sugar-coated your bashing in "but it wasn't completely horrible"s and "I've changed my mind"s. You do a brilliant bashing, immediately after you've read it (when your emotional reaction and all your words count the most) and then you come back a couple days later and add "I have gained a new appreciation for this story." Ohh boo. It's a play. How did it make you feel???? "If you're not jumping out of your seat, then SIT DOWN."
ReplyDeleteConfession # Four: Oh my, if I continue at this rate, I am going to have no friends left in our high school. I will be the evil blog bashing commentator. Mwahaha. (<- the evil laugh is more appropriate now, clearly).
Villain's 'last' words: Don't worry guys, I'll be back. (Keep commenting!)
-Sam Mairson, mwahaha.
Sam... Confession: I'm jealous that you saw this play- the relationships, the people in it- for what it (and they) truly is (are) without having anyone explain it to you (like myself- see above). If I had never read this play, and just gone and seen it (and if I remembered Mr.McArthur's advice) I would not have given it a standing ovation. I didn't like the ending, and I didn't get it- before I came here and read other people’s comments. And when I don’t understand something, I don’t like it (the thing, and the not being able to understand). I get it more now, after reading some of our classmate’s insightful postings, because hey, we’re students. We’re learning. But I’m not going to say I like it now, because I’m not so sure that I did. Don’t go calling me a hypocrite because I said “…you guys have put my mind at ease more about the ending.” I meant that I understood it more. The what, the how, the why, ect. And I do like it more than I did before I didn’t get it, but I’m not going to say I really like it. I said “Now, I don’t think I’d change a thing about the ending” because I saw (and see) Melissa’s point that “the realistic, emotionally charged ending was the best way for Josie and Jim’s story to come to a close.”
ReplyDeleteIt was the same for me with The Catcher in the Rye a year ago. But after we were done working with it in class (and ok, a few more weeks after that), I was trying to explain the book to some one else. I don’t think they really got what I was saying, but explaining it made me understand it better, and I didn’t hate it anymore. I still don’t like it, and I still don’t agree with Caulfield or Salinger, but I get it.
Well, I guess I’m just defending what I said before you get a chance to bash my bashing. But I liked what you said in your first post, “The story was wonderfully conceived, designed, and planned. Life is not.” When I finish a book- in this case, play- that was a little tough for me, I go back and explain everything that happened to myself like I’m telling some one else who hasn’t read it. And then I ask myself: so what was this play about? Thanks for helping to answer my question.
By the way, when you get to The Return of the Native, you’re going to want to read the introduction last.
I’m not looking at previous comments yet because I don’t want to spoil the book. I have just finished reading Act Two.
ReplyDeleteMy first impression of Josie Hogan was that she was just a mean and conniving woman who had no passionate side but as I read on I saw a different side of her. Although she keeps her guard up the majority of the time, there are glimpses of her true feelings. For example in Act Two when Jim doesn’t show up for the late night date, Josie is genuinely upset about it. What surprised me most was that she even went in her room and cried which leads me to ask — was she crying about Jim not coming to the date or that Jim would give the farm to Harder or something entirely different that I missed?
On another note, I have really enjoyed the witty and sarcastic comments said by Josie, Hogan, and Jim. My favorite part was when T. Stedman Harder arrived at the Hogan’s house. I didn’t know what to expect but once the scheme unfolded, I found myself actually laughing out loud. I was surprised that Hogan and Josie had come up with such a clever scheme without even discussing it before hand. I can’t wait to see what happens between Jim and Josie!
Kelsey Tuller, I am a huge fan of yours.
ReplyDelete- Samantha Mairson
That's all I was going to write. Then I realized I was cheating. What I appreciate most in your above comment is the honesty. For that I am a huge fan of yours. You are feisty! I most enjoyed the part where you said, "I get it more now, after reading some of our classmate’s insightful postings, because hey, we’re students. We’re learning." You are very wise, grasshopper. Sometimes I see the world so vividly. Other times (like when I look at certain math problems) things get a bit fuzzy. We all understand things differently, we all learn differently, we all have different lives. Our lives are constructed on our experiences. What propels one person out of their seat could be the very thing that keeps another sitting.
I read what Melissa said, and I agree with you that she vividly presented the story in an understandable and illuminating way. She broke the big relationships down in a way that made things sensible. I prefer to wave my hands around and give a grand, impassioned speech on philosophy and the meaning of life, then support it with the facts. I realized that I may look at things from a different place. But if you're ever thrown some inspiration and can't make much of it - if you ever have trouble with that question: so what's this play about? - I will be happy to offer a grand, impassioned speech on philosophy and the meaning of life. I don't always know what I'm talking about or if I'm 100% right, of that much I'll warn you. But that not-knowing, that incomplete certainty, makes the dialogue all the more fun.
Sincerely,
Sam
PS, good advice. I have finished The Return of the Native. And I took enormous pleasure in passing every page of the introduction =]
So like many, I ended up reading the play in one day. And also like many, I was rooting for Jim and Josie to be together and was disappointed in the end because they were not. But after reading the comments left by other people, especially Melissa, saying that the author probably gave it the ending that he did so that we can actually feel something, and that life really isn't fair all the time, and the different backgrounds of the two made it so that they would be better off without each other no matter how much they loved the other, made me both appreciate and understand the ending of the book that I despised so much at first.
ReplyDeleteYes, life does not always have a happy ending, but I think there is in the relationship of Josie and Hogan. When Jim told Josie the truth about him accepting Harder's offer as a joke in Act 3, I was pretty mad that Hogan used that to trick his daughter. I was disappointed that he used Josie because I thought that he was using her to get money from Jim. But when I realized that he lied to her so that she can find happiness through love, I knew that he was really a father that loved her daughter and wanted the best for her. There, in a sense, is a happy ending for Josie and Hogan. Plus I really liked the twist in all of Hogan's scheming.
Many people were saying that books, like Goldengrove, didn't seem realistic to them because of their happy endings and whatnot, but I don't think all endings have to be sad. There are times when things end on a good note. I mean I wasn't the biggest fan of the book Goldgengrove or its ending, but it wasn't because of the too happy ending either. What made this book so different from the ending of Goldgengrove was that this book really made you feel something, making it good. On the other hand, Goldengrove just skipped over all of that and flat out told you everything in somewhat a boring manner.
Anyways, a quote from Melody Beattie says, "Sometimes, we don’t get what we want. . . But this is a benevolent universe. And once in a while, we do." I agree with her. It's true that life doesn't always go the way we want it to and it's not always fair, but there are things that everyone looks forward to and as there are moments of sorrow and hate, there probably is an equal amount of happiness. I believe that if there is happiness, then there has to be sadness and vise versa. You can't have just one and not the other because you wouldn't know what the difference is.
Sorry that I have not posted on this for a while- I was on vacation without computer access, and since I've been home, I"ve been extremely busy getting ready for our upcoming performance of "The Music Man".
ReplyDeleteI know I sound like a copycat for saying this, but I, too, would love to see a performance of "Moon for the Misbegotten"!
Kelsey- I know some people already answered your question about the ending and I loved Melissa's response and points. All I can add is the cliche remark "If you love something or someone, you need to be strong enough to let them go."
Liz- As a response to your comment about Alex's thoughts: I think that the plot itself was not actually all that thin, just extremely complex in that it got lost within the analyses of the characters and their intentions. It seemed like that of a soap opera, extremely elaborate and confusing- something you hope not to get trapped and transfixed in, and something only very few people can ever truly understand. Still, I agree that the characters were the main focal point of the story.
-Dylan Schiff
I just read acts one and two and haven't read nearly anyone's blogs yet. I can't help but imagining Josie a different way each time the mood changes. I first pictured her as everyone else does: a fierce, strong, intimidating woman. In my head, she looks something like Miss Trunchbull from the movie, Matilda. Josie steals money and helps her brother Mike escape the farm, but shoos him away with insults.
ReplyDeleteShe is not like most women in many respects, like on page 32 when she says she needs “hard work in the sun” to clear her mind and calls her dad a “bad-tempered old hornet.” She makes Mike’s plan of marrying Tyrone for money seem preposterous, but later waits up for Jim in her Sunday clothes. This side of Josie made me rethink my image of her. When she spoke to Jim, she seemed like less of a beast; she seemed softer. Again though, after reading two acts, Josie’s roughness and crookedness in conversing with other characters surprises me. She sees herself as a cow and does not accept compliments with any seriousness. This seems like a security issue, to protect herself from being vulnerable.
As Jim is telling Josie about his mom, I found it really interesting that he had to close his eyes and become removed from what he was saying. His need to make the story impersonal to manage his hurt blows me away. I put a lot of emotion into what I say, so I can hardly imagine a situation that devastating. The fact that he was so effected by guilt and loss of his mother that he has to become objective to tell about it, makes Jim’s story even more tragic to me. Jim’s past with his mom revealed how much he truly loved her, enough to quit drinking for her while she was alive, and to feel hopeless without her. His drunkenness and reckless behavior after her death left him saying, “How could I? I don’t know.” When we don’t know how to respond to an intense emotion, we’ve all said something similar to that before, and done things we can’t explain after.
ReplyDeleteA motif I noticed throughout the book was that we tend to kid ourselves, usually to cope with a suppressed emotion. Jim began to drink again when his mother died, thinking she’d never know. He paid prostitutes supposedly to forget the pain, later revealing that it wasn’t to forget, but for revenge. It’s a funny thing, people often hold onto pain. We don’t want to forget, or let go of the emotion because it shows we care. It is almost better to feel pain than to feel nothing at all, like a fear of moving on. This brings out Josie’s “maternal tenderness.” She goes through a huge transformation from the first few pages to comforting Jim on her breast in Act Three. Maybe it wasn’t even that big of a change inside of her, but the change involved which emotions she let free. She let herself love Jim and let go of “that rough stuff.” I think that side of her was always present, but she did not allow anyone to see it before, as a result of years spent with her father.
-Audrey Corbin
I haven't read previous comments because of the possibility of spoilers. I hope I'm not redundant in saying this, but I found it hard to find the true meaning of the plot. I don't quite understand how Josie helping her brother escape connects to Josie and Jim's relationship. I'm wondering if it was just an inside peek into Josie's inner being- her toughness as a woman, her rebelliousness towards her father, and her lack of virtue.
ReplyDeleteJosie and Jim's relationship was...interesting. There were a lot of back-and-forth moments throughout the entire night and morning scenes in the end of Act II, and throughout Acts III and IV. Josie would tell Jim to leave and then he would stay. All of a sudden, Jim wanted to leave and Josie begged him to stay. It happened over and over, and frankly, it got to be a little exasperating. I know that they were struggling with their truths, but I felt as if I was being yanked back and forth from their reality.
This book was a pretty good read; however, I usually like more juice in the stories I read. This one always seemed to be almost there, but it never exceeded my expectations of a fabulous book, but I still enjoyed the book. It's definitely a different kind of love story. I may be the cliche of a teenage girl, but I love happy endings with the couples together after a rough road.
After finishing this book, I don't quite know how to feel. There were so many layers of schemes. After one was revealed, it made me question if what I was now reading was another scheme or if it was genuine this time. In the beginning, Hogan and Josie plan to trick harder into paying them for breaking down the fence to his ice pond. This scheme is obviously intended to swindle Harder. As the book goes on, the schemes become more hidden. After Jim "sold" the farm to Harder for $1,000, Josie and Hogan plan to get back at Jim by finding him in bed with Josie. Later, it is revealed that this is only Hogan's scheme to get Josie and Jim together; he faked drunkeness and knew Jim hadn't sold the farm. Just when I thought I had it figured out (that they were go to get back at Jim), Hogan had thought up another purpose. Then Josie punishes Hogan by acting as though she is leaving to never return.
ReplyDeleteWhen I began reading, I would have never thought I could have related to Josie and her tough, shameful ways. Even though she put on that front, she did have love and compassion in her heart. I bet a lot of us are more like Josie than we think, putting on a front because we haven't let out our real emotions. Josie's love ended up being stronger than her physical strength.
I appreciated the character development, too. Even though Josie and Hogan came up with some great insults for each other, they always knew how to handle each other. They always had an understanding.
Adding to everyone else's comments on the ending, I liked it. We all know love must be an amazing emotion, but probably the most complicated. Eugene O'neill created real characters, with real problems, real relationships, and real endings; and I respect that. We should learn from it.
-Audrey Corbin
Audrey: I LOVE your comparison of Josie to Miss Trunchbull from Matilda. Based off of the image of Josie which I have formed in my head, I too imagine that they probably do look a lot alike! :)
ReplyDelete- Liz Elliott
In my opinion, the second half of this book was much better than the first half. There was not enough conflict in the first half to keep the story interesting, but the new conflicts between Tyrone and Hogan make the story flow much smoother. Also, when Hogan's scheme is revealed, it gives the book a layer of complexity that was lacking earlier, which ties all the elements of the story together very well. I also think that the characters became much more believable in the second half, and their emotions became very real and relatable. It was interesting to learn that both Josie and Hogan had been lying through the entire book about Josie being a virgin. The fact that Tyrone saw through this lie and never doubted his judgment on the matter shows how well he knew Josie and how strong his love for her was.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone that the reality of the ending of the book was good. I think the book would have lost some credibility if it had ended with Josie and Tyrone together, as throughout the book it seemed that O'Neill tried to keep all the situations as real as possible.
-Alex Clifford
It's been said that the plot of this story was thin...while this may be true, the depth and development of the characters truly stands out, and it's the reason I liked the book so much. I read it in less than a day because I was so genuinely interested in the characters' problems and inner conflicts, as apposed to Goldengrove, where I honestly felt that I was reading about a family of stereotypes.
ReplyDelete-Ryan Gannon
Hi Everyone! Ok so I just finished reading A Moon for the Misbegotten and I absolutely LOVED it! I actually laughed out loud while reading this.
ReplyDeleteI loved how in the beginning of the play O'Neill described in detail the house/farm that Josie and Hogan lived in. I enjoy technical theater..as many of you know, so the description of their house allowed me to picture not only the setting of the story, but also how it would look onstage. For me this was just an added bonus to the story because it allowed me to appreciate not only the story itself, but it gave me the opprotunity to try and appreciate it for the way it was originally intended...if that makes any sense. It let me imagine how the play would look like if it were preformed onstage which was an interesting way for me to look at a story.
I really liked how the entire thing was so sarcastic. To me it seemed like every line between Josie and her father was loaded with sarcasm and so it made their relationship comical, but it also it made the end of the play touching/nice. After all of the scheming it was nice to see that Hogan actually did care for his daughter. The end of the play was heart warming. When Jim tells Josie that he wasn't going to sell the farm and that Hogan knew I was furious with Hogan for scheming just to try to get Jim's money, but when you find out the real reason it made me forgive Hogan. Even with all of the scheming, his heart was in the right place and it was just nice to see him care so much about Josie's happiness. With all of the bickering they do throughout the play, you get the impression that they don't have the best father-daughter relationship, so to see Hogan going through so much just for the chance to have his daughter happy was a pleasent surprise.
I just found the entire book overall humerous and entertaining. In my mind, Hogan is your stereotypical Irish drunk which just made it histerical to me. I can't really explain why I loved this book so much, I just did.
Ok so now i've written my original thoughts, I'm going to comment on other people's.
First: Dylan- I agree! This is like a combination of Romeo and Juliet and A Midsummer Night's Dream. I hadn't thought of it that way.
Sarah (and others who commented on her original post): I agree with your post too. The only thing that bugged me about this book was that Josie and Jim didn't end up together. I don't really understand why they thought that not being together would be better. But I also agree with Melissa. If the book had ended with the fairy tale ending with the two getting together and living happily ever after, it would have ruined the book. I'm not sure how I wanted this to end. I guess I just wanted Jim and Josie to have more time together or something. The way they left just seems like it would have been so painful.
That's all I'll comment on for now. Your guys make posting very intimidating...you write a lot and have a lot of good ideas that are making me rethink the book and my initial reactions to it. I will leave with one note though...unlike most of you, I do NOT want to see this play preformed. I think that as interesting as it would be to see it preformed, it would ruin all of the images I have in my head. Since I love the play I don't want what I have in my mind destroyed or have the play be less than it could be. For me when I go to see a play I pay a lot of attention to the sets..yes I'm weird like that...so if the set didn't live up to the one in my head I would be very disappointed. Though if it was preformed on Broadway that would be another story...they have amazing sets. But even if it were preformed somewhere else, it would be neat to see how close the images I have are to an actual preformance. So maybe I would want to see it preformed, but from what I've read in other's posts, I am not as eager as some to see it done. Just my opinion.
- Jen Rankin
Jen- First off, YAY you posted!!! Next off, I would like to say that for me, the connection between Josie and Hogan was quite confusing since I apparently did not catch on to the sarcastic humor, so to hear you say that you loved it and understood it made me quite jealous. Also, I think that seeing the play performed (regardless of the venue) would be beneficial to many of us. In my opinion, there are many ways each line can be expressed and there are also many unscripted gestures (and other such things) that can be added which may influence a character's persona which we may lose by simply reading the script. Please don't be mad at me contradicting you. =]
ReplyDelete-Dylan Schiff
This is not connected to the actual play A Moon for the Misbegotten, but was just funny so I have to share it. Today, I visited Stony Brook University and was on the tour when we visited a dorm called "Eugene O'Neill College"! I thought of A Moon for the Misbegotten and I took a picture of it and I was very excited. I apologize if this is out of context but I just had to share.
ReplyDeleteWhile I'm posting (since I may as well say something relevant), Jen, I see what you mean. You have an image of the play and you don't want to shatter that. I feel that way about certain movies. As far as this play goes, however, I don't really have an image at all right now. I think it would help me understand it better if I had an image of the play, and so that is why I would like to see it performed.
-Beverly Naigles
I can see where you're coming from, Jen, with not wanting to ruin the picture in your head, because I know there are some books I would never want to see as a movie because I would be afraid of the producers ruining it. I didn't feel so strongly about A Moon for the Misbegotten, and I was kind of confused about the sets, so I would like to see it on stage, in part, to get that straightened out.
ReplyDeleteI was also thinking more about the ending, and I kind of like the idea of Jim not getting to be with Josie as a punishment for being an alcoholic. I don't know how people are going to react to me with this, but here goes. In the introduction it says Eugene O'Neill both loved and hated his brother. "He hated him for his drunkenness and cynicism, and for the example of failure he set an impressionable younger brother “(O'Neill being the younger brother). So maybe he did kind of do this on purpose. The way I see it people become addicted (and I’m largely talking about alcoholics here) because the substance makes them feel a way they feel they can no longer- or could ever- feel sober. Eventually it gets to the point where they feel they can no longer function, even remotely, in every day society with out getting their fix. When we first meet Jim Tyrone, he’s already had a few drinks (if you didn’t know what a pick-me-up was, pg. 24), yet he doesn’t really act drunk at all. He’s built up that much of a tolerance that alcohol cures his hangover. I think total dependence on a substance is the deepest level of human weakness, so depriving Jim of the only person he could love, and the only person that could love him (however that's possible) seems like a fitting punishment.
This was probably the fastest read ever for me, I finished the entire thing on my plane ride back from California. I found it quite an easy read - which is surprising because I usually hate plays and find them hard to follow if I'm reading them on my own. Even though it was an easy read, I found the plot sort of boring and lacking depth. I was quite surprised by Josie's actions (sleeping around) as well as how she spoke because I didn't think it really fit the time period but obviously I was wrong. I was disappointed by the ending - which is weird because I didn't expect anything to happen or anything like that. I didn't really get why Tyronne was seeking forgiveness from Josie for all the whores he slept with. Was it because he loved her? I feel stupid for asking this question, but was Josie actually a virgin?
ReplyDeleteI would think it would be rather hard to cast the role of Josie in the actual production of the play. Because of the specification that O'Neil makes about her character.
-Kristina Porter
I don't usually like plays either, but this one was good. It has a really good message about love and when to let the other person go. Usually love stories are about someone finding their soulmate, and doing anything to be with that person. This story is different because Josie and Tyrone fall in love, but they both have the common sense to know when their love would be too painful. My first impression of the characters was that they were all drunks, so they must be stupid, but all of the characters were really smart. Just in a different way.
ReplyDeleteI also couldn't figure out if Josie was actually a virgin.
I think the reason nobody knows if Josie was a virgin or not was because of the fact that it was never stated definitely in the text. Like I've said (I think now four times), the one (or at least the biggest) problem with reading a play script rather than a book is that there are so many ways every line can be interpreted. In addition, I believe that each time the subject was brought up, everyone was drunk and either lying or telling their versions of scenarios going on. All in all, I think that O'neill wants us to be in an ambiguous grey area which is left open for interpretation.
ReplyDelete-Dylan Schiff
Just my two cents...my general impression was that Josie was a virgin. Looking back, I can't find exactly what led me to believe this, because as Dylan said it was never actually mentioned by someone who we were sure was sober and being serious. That was just the final impression I was left with.
ReplyDelete-Beverly Naigles
I agree with Beverly; I think Josie is a virgin too, and even though Jim was drunk the whole time, he was insistant that she stop talking like a loose woman because he was sure she wasn't. They both seemed to see through each other's facades, and I remember somewhere in the play about how Josie leads men right up to that moment- and then doesn't, well, you know, and the guys think its them and of course don't want to admit that they didn't actually do anything. It seemed to me like something Josie would do because its consistent with all her scheming.
ReplyDeleteIm pretty sure that Josie does admit she is a virgin toward the end of the book when Jim and Josie are together. On page 115 Jim admits to Josie that he truely cares about her and loves her, taking Josie by surprise. She then says "Do you Jim? Do you? Then I'll confess the truth to you. I've been a crazy fool. I'm a virgin." Of course she could just be lying, but I seriously doubt that at such a pivitol moment in both of their lives she would lie about something like that. Especially when it says that she started sobbing afterwards basically because he wouldnt have sex with her now and she wanted to because she loved him. It all points to the fact that she was, in fact, a virgin.
ReplyDeleteI've just finished Act 1 of A Moon for the Misbegotten, and the first thing I noticed was how fast the pages were flying by. Yesterday I finished A Distant Mirror for AP Euro, and that book took me ages to read (it was still good, though). Act 1 is sixty pages, that took me less than an hour to read. Sixty pages in A Distant Mirror would have taken almost three hours!
ReplyDeleteEnough with my partially irrelevant comparison. A Moon for the Misbegotten dragged me in immediately, though I'm really not sure why. Act 1 doesn't have any real action or plot developments, but it does have a lot of characters insulting each other (I enjoy reading about characters insulting other characters). It also clearly says that there will be an important event soon, so of course I want to read about that. So overall, I think it's a fine book, and I hope it stays fine as I go through it (probably quickly).
I just have to say this: The Prince is the most boring book ever, and one of the worst I've read (The House on Mango Street is still the worst book I have ever read).
Pardon my brief rant.
Time to do some more reading! I'll post again tomorrow!
~ Gregory Naigles ~
I just finished reading A Moon for the Misbegotten. I have a few observations:
ReplyDelete1. The characters seem to have trouble accepting reality; Tyrone was biggest on this but Josie had trouble also.
2. After reading Act 3, I thought that the place in the book where Act 2 ends and Act 3 begins should be moved a few pages back, to fight when Josie and Tyrone start talking. However, now, after reading Act 4, for some reason I now agree with where the acts were split. I'm really not sure what changed my mind on that one.
3. I may have to read the book again to fully understand Jim's problems and Hogan's scheme. They were explained only briefly in the book, not mentioned enough to stick in my head.
4. I really don't see how Jim's mother is an important character. All we know about her is that she was very important to Jim, she died, and Jim has been depressed since then. We don't learn about her personality, and I only think she's there in order to explain why Jim is depressed. She's certainly not a character important enough to write an essay about.
On to Goldengrove!
~ Gregory Naigles ~
A Moon for the Misbegotten was better than I anticipated it to be. I thought the conversations between Josie and Jim were witty and it was these conversations that kept me interested. I also liked how the plot was not entirely about the relationship between Jim and Josie, but also about her relationship with her father, and the future of their farm. I do however have a few complaints. I wish we found out more about the relationship between Josie's father and her brothers. We never find out what truly made life so much more miserable for them than Josie. Their father was seemed to sincerely care about Josie's happiness though he may just have cared about Jim's money I was left with the impression that his daughter was also important to him. Overall, I enjoyed the plot of the story, but at some points I became impatient with the dialogue and found myself wishing that the characters would just say what they mean and get it over with.
ReplyDelete-Rebecca Tourtellotte
Ok, I just scanned some other comments and got the impression that most people enjoyed this book but not everyone. Well I would just like to say…Sam, get ready because I am about to do some serious bashing. I felt like this book as a movie or play would be no more than those little pre-movies they sometimes show before movies, and everyone hates them and just wants the real movie to start because there is no real plot. I read this book on the plane ride to the Virgin Islands and when I finished I put the book down and thought that was the most pointless 150 pages that I have ever read. I do not even know how they made this into an entertaining play. There was no plot and guess what Jim and Josie’s night together was no different than any other one night stand because in the end they left each other in the hopes of never seeing each other again. So they said they were in love, it would not be the first time that a drunk lied so he could lay his head on a lady’s bosom. You all can wallow over Josie and Jim not ending up together but I didn’t believe their love for one second. It may just be my personal beliefs but love does not develop after one intimate night together and lots of booze. All I can say is I must be missing something about the depth of the characters or the intricacy of the plot because I found this book completely boring and flat. If someone could shed some light on what I am missing in the plot or the characters I am open to opinions because most of the comments are about whether Josie and Jim are better off together or apart. Well, let me tell you I could care less because he is a drunk and she was just another one of his one night stands and if you can show me some evidence of real love I would love to hear it. Beacuse right now the only desirable thing in this book is the charming banter between Josie and Hogan.
ReplyDeleteWow, two very different opinions after my posts.
ReplyDeleteRebecca: Agree that the witty comments made the play easier to read, you mentioned Jim and Josie but you could say the same thing about Josie and Hogan. And about the miserable (?) life of the Hogan children, I think we're supposed to form our own beliefs of why they hated life on the farm. I personally think that Hogan forced his children to work on the farm while he got drunk. And the dialogue, I agree, was long-winded at times, especially in Acts 2 and 3.
Heather: I thought the book did have a plot. Mike leaves, Josie and Hogan chat about their problems, Jim comes, he and Josie talk about their plan, Harder comes, Josie and Hogan verbally attack him, he leaves, Josie and Hogan have a long-winded chat, Jim comes, he and Josie have a long chat where he reveals some of his past to her, this has an impact on their relationship. Josie discovers Hogan's scheme, Jim says goodbye and leaves. (By the way, that was all from memory.)
I might agree that the book had no plot if not for Jim's revealing his past to Josie. As I said before, this has a big impact on both of them, and things change.
This book would have been boring if O'Neill had somehow stretched it out to 300 pages. But 150 pages is a good length for a book like this.
Last comment on the plot for now: I'm not big on intricacies, but I think that for a book to have a plot, it must have an exposition, climax, and resolution, as well as some important events that have impacts on at least one of the characters. A Moon for the Misbegotten fits those criteria, so I believe it has a plot.
~ Gregory Naigles ~
After finishing _A Moon for the Misbegotten_ in about three days, I can say that it was by far the shortest and my favorite read of the three books. As many have noted, one of the book's strongest components was the series of witty insults that comprised every line of its dialog. In a sense, O'Neill's dialog was doing the same thing as Hardy's: drawing out what could have been conveyed in a few sentences into pages of text. O'Neill, however, was able to actually make the information more interesting and of a faster pace by making the characters fire insults back and forth at one another; on the other hand, while Hardy's pages of description and gossip may have drawn a crystal-clear picture of the setting, they also left the reader wondering how many pages it can possibly take to convey the idea, "Eustacia's lips were exquisite." I agree that the ending, although it may have been rather bittersweet, was realistic and satisfying overall.
ReplyDeleteAs I started reading, my mind leapt back to the days of Roald Dahl: Hogan's doctoring up sick animals for sale (9) reminded me of _The Twits_, in which the father sells substandard used cars that he has prepared similarly. The book continued with a depiction of the more realistic Twits that lurk even in present-day society: those like Harder, who have it made--thanks to the ruthless work of greedy corporations such as Standard Oil--and are unwilling to make any contribution to society, either by performing useful work or contributing funds to help someone besides themselves. I appreciated the way Josie and Hogan bashed Harder when he payed them a visit (54): I think they gave him just what he deserved.
I really liked Josie as a character: she was like Eustacia in that she lived in a society that was designed to put her down, and in her resentment of this. However, unlike Eustacia, who embraced society as a means of gaining popularity while disagreeing with its fundamental inequalities, Josie showed much more strength of character by defying the oppressive order outright: she boasted about her sex life, outsmarted and overpowered her male neighbors, and rejected the religion that put her sex down (8). Yet, when she fell in love, it was a genuine feeling, and not contrived for personal gain.
Now it's time to draw attention to a couple bits of irony that I appreciated. First, while Jim can't stand the thought of Josie's not being a virgin (he therefore insists that she is), and vice-versa (she moves away upon hearing of the blonde on the train), we know that Jim isn't one, and there is a good chance that Josie isn't, either. I also noticed that Josie uttered the words, "She hears. I feel [H]er in the moonlight, [H]er soul wrapped in it like a silver mantle and I know [S]he understands and forgives me ..." (129), which sound suspiciously like one of the prayers she scolded her brother for.
-- Sol Boucher
Gregory, I concede this book might have a plot but I have to say how would you feel about being handed this book and given this description – “Mike leaves, Josie and Hogan chat about their problems, Jim comes, he and Josie talk about their plan, Harder comes, Josie and Hogan verbally attack him, he leaves, Josie and Hogan have a long-winded chat, Jim comes, he and Josie have a long chat where he reveals some of his past to her, this has an impact on their relationship. Josie discovers Hogan's scheme, Jim says goodbye and leaves.” – Personally I would not feel too compelled to sit down and start reading. It just sounds like a lot of long chats to me…boring! I just believe this book has no excitement and it had no affect on me. In my opinion, good books are memorable. After I finish reading a good book I put it down and am left feeling sad or happy for the characters and I usually feel an emotional connection to the characters. When I finished “Goldengrove” I was satisfied with the way Nico overcame her sister’s death and the way her life turned out. Throughout that book I was able to feel what Nico was going through. And in “The Return of the Native” I put the book down feeling satisfied about Eustacia and Wildeve’s fate, and I believe I took away many lessons about love and life from that book. On the other hand, this book left me feeling nothing. I could not connect with any of the characters on any level. I did not believe the love that Josie and Jim supposedly shared. I did not believe Josie would treat her father the way she did and treat her brothers the opposite. In addition, I did not get the impression that Jim telling Josie about the blonde from the train was that much of a turning point in the book. I am guessing that if Jim had not told Josie that story he still would have left the next morning hung-over. So in the end I admit this book may have a plot but I still believe it is not a good plot. And maybe it is just that I do not have personal experiences that are relatable to any of the characters in this book but I found I had no emotional connection to anything in this book.
ReplyDeleteHeather: My description of the plot does sound boring, I will admit that. However, I never said that the plot was interesting; I simply said the book had a plot. The book was certainly full of chats, many of which didn't enhance the plot. I feel that the book was good, but for plot-unrelated reasons, such as the insults. Seeing as I have not finished either of the other books, I cannot compare endings, and I do agree that this ending left something to be desired. Of course, the ending is part of the plot. The plot was okay, but other aspects of the book made it good.
ReplyDelete~ Gregory Naigles ~
P.S. Almost any play is a lot of long chats.
Heather, I didn't really get this book either. I finished it and I was like "okay, cool". I didn't really see that anything had happened nor did I care about any of the characters. I don’t feel like I got much out of it. I didn’t even care about their little love thing one way or another, it didn’t even make me care about it enough for me to think about if it was true love or just another one-night-stand. Then I read about how everyone else had all these wonderful thoughts about it and I was like "darn, what did I miss?" I am part-way through reading it again, but I'm not getting much more so far other than insults. Maybe I’m not enough of a romantic to really get it or to care. If someone could explain exactly how things change after Jim tells Josie his story that would be helpful. I am trying to reread it and figure it out but it’s kind of difficult. I think my other problem is that the characters didn’t make me care about them. In Return of the Native, I had strong opinions and cared about all of the characters and that made me love it. In this story, nothing made me really care about them. This could be a result of it being a play, or it could just be me, but I think that added to my not really caring.
ReplyDeleteI really do apologize for bashing, and I would love to change my opinion about this book if someone can explain it to me.
-Beverly Naigles
I enjoyed A Moon for the Misbegotten while reading it. The characters were witty and endearing, and the plot was easy enough to follow without putting me to sleep. I really liked the relationships between each character, especially Josie and her father who were extremely entertaining especially when in the company of others. When reading it I have to admit I was reading it objectively so it as only after I finished the play that I reflected on it and really thought about it that my opinion completely shifted. Josie completely changes herself for a man, something women do all too often. It made me sick to think that she was willing to use her body to control a man that she truly did love. It also made me upset that she makes a fool of herself (something completely out of character for her) just to please a drunken man who has never done a thing for her and her father who is seemingly selling her out to save his farm. Josie is a poor example of a strong independent woman that she comes of as in the beginning. I was sorely disappointed in her.
ReplyDeleteHello fellow bloggers,
ReplyDeleteOkay that was really cheesy but after reading that book I can't help myself. I am the complete opposite of a hopeless romantic so I found this book extremely cliche, except for the ending which was a shocker. I found his book an extremly easy read and I enjoyed the witty humor that Josie and her father posess. I found myself smiling and in some cases laughing out loud as they bantered back and forth between themselves or teamed up and joked around with others. My favorite part in the book was definitely when Hogan and Josie gang up on Harder, I found it hilarious and surprisingly refreshing. When I first opened the book my head said "NOOOOOOOO!!" I dreaded reading another book in a play format. After Romeo and Juliet, I wasn't emotionally prepared for another play, but I read on and after a while I completely forgot that it wasn't written like a normal novel. I even began to enjoy the footnotes (for lack of a better play term) They let me see the entire play in my head as I was reading it,instead of leaving me guessing about what was happening and just going on what the book was saying. I'm not going to lie, the ending creeped me out a little when Josie wished Jim a pleasent death. But if that's the most romantic thing she can think of saying then more power to her. It just was not what I thought it was going to end like, but that's not necessarily a bad thing either. Well, tell me what you think!
-Hanna Chrisensen
Heather and Beverly, I guess I’ll take a shot at explain this, though I wasn’t a huge fan of it myself, so I don’t know how this is going to go. I think that if you didn’t like it, it wasn’t so much that you missed anything, but maybe you just didn’t like it. Though Heather, maybe you should take a step back from the plot- or the lack there of- and look again at the characters, because it seems like O’Neill wanted us to focus on them more. There’s a reason for everything, especially a scarce plot. He was very strong with three of the four methods of characterization: what the characters says, what the character does, and what others say about the character. (He couldn’t use the fourth, narration about the character, because it was a play). Maybe the story and the characters just aren’t for you. There’s always going to be books, plays and poems that some of us don’t like. I was drawn in by the romance because O’Neill made it seem like Jim and Josie had always admired each other from afar and that they had always been friends but each secretly dreamed of something more, and sometimes they tried to encode their feelings in what they said to each other (I probably made that up) because they could never be alone together because Josie’s father was always around. They knew each other for quite awhile before the part of their lives that the play picks up at, and maybe they knew enough about the other to fancy they were actually in love. But this is the romantic in me (Ok, pretty much all of me is romantic), picking up on all the romance that may not even be there. Beverly, I think Jim finally coming out with his story about his mother is significant because that is the root of all his problems. It’s why he’s an alcoholic, and I think maybe him explaining to Josie why he is the way he is is (so many is’s!!) his way of telling her they can’t be together, and after that they both start to realize and accept that “they” will never be.
ReplyDeleteI cared about Josie because she was strong willed and independent minded, but at the same time caring and not ashamed or apologizing to anyone for her sex (like woman in historical pieces often do). I had strong feelings against Jim toward the end, and I even liked Hogan.
I have to disagree with some of the things you said about Josie, Emma, and I’m not really sure what you’re basing some of them off of. If with “changing herself for a man” you’re referring to how she got dressed up for her date with Jim, I don’t know if that’s big enough to count- it’s just an outfit- but I can see where you’re coming from on that one. I’d have to compare her using her body to “control” Jim to Eustacia trying to marry to get out of the heath- she was working the system because in that day and age there weren’t that many options for poor tenant farmers, much less women.
Gregory- I know how strongly you stand with your opinions but I was confused with your comment, "The book was certainly full of chats, many of which didn't enhance the plot." I could not disagree more. Without the dialogue between the characters (as confusing, drunked, and roundabout as they were), there would not have been a plot. As Kelsey said, O'neill wanted us to focus more on the characters and their relationships with one another, and everything we take away from the book comes from their "long-winded" chats.
ReplyDeleteEmma- I disagree with your statement that Josie was not a strong, independent woman. Like Kelsey said, a woman from this book's setting only had so many options. I also disagree with your comment regarding her using her body to control a man-- it may just be me, but I think you read that in a different way than I did. I thought her actions were meant to be genuine and loving. My logic behind that was that the whole meeting was heartfelt and almost like an emotional-baggage cleansing. Therefore, I thought it would make sense that their love and their actions were true, dear, and genuine. But that could be (and most likely is) just me misinterpreting the book in some goofy way.
My thoughts on this can be summed up quite easily. Boring. When I first saw the characters name I thought this was going to be the story of Hulk Hogan's sister who suffered from an inferiority complex because she could never be as awesome as him. However this is not the case.
ReplyDeleteI think the inclusion of Hulk Hogan would have gone a long way in making this book appeal to a larger audience. Actually I think that the incredible hulk would also have helped. Can you imagine Bruce Banner suddenly showing up in the final scene of this and ending everything? That would have been "freakin' sweet."
I actually agree with Emma's statements completely. I was also really disappointed with Josie at the end of the book and thought she did use her body in a negative way. Even though she says its genuine love, I still think Josie could have handled the situation with Jim a little better than she did. I didnt find her actions heartfelt, she may have just had a maternal instinct to hold Jim when he was drunk, but I just found her holding him to her breast a little weird, and especially holding that position for hours not to wake him. No matter how much I like a guy, I need my sleep and I would most definitely not sit there for hours, un-moving, while he slept like a baby. But, maybe that's just me.
ReplyDelete-Hanna Christensen
And I really want to know who said that stuff about Hulk Hogan and the incredible Hulk. In other words, Who are you Anonymous?! While their inclusion in the play might ruin the integrity of it, their parts might add to the plot and make the novel more exciting. Great idea!
ReplyDelete-Hanna Christensen
Kelsey thanks for attempting to explain what some people might have seen in this book. I agree it probably just isn't for me. But I have to admit that focusing on only the characters, I did like elements of Josie's character. Overall though I think the reason I did not enjoy all the banter as much as other people, was that I was turned off by everyone always having to be drunk. If the entire focus of this book is on conversation than wouldn't conversation be more meaningful if the characters were sober? I understand it is essential for Jim to be drunk so he will share the story about his mother. But I didn't believe Josie and Jim's relationship because it was based on booze and lies. I guess it doesn't make a lot of sense that I was so bothered by alcohol because it was an integral part of the plot but it just was not to my liking. Sorry, this probably sounds like I am rambling but I am just trying to target exactly why I didn't like this book because it is obvious many people did like it.
ReplyDeleteDylan: I apologize for the confusion my comment created. What I meant was that not every long-winded discussion was important to the plot. Certainly many of them were, possibly even a majority, but, as is true of most books, some parts were simply not necessary. For example, while all of Act 1 is necessary for the development of the characters, in Act 2, pages 64-66, 74-75, 77, most of page 84, and scattered other bits are unnecessary, either because thesame thing was said previously in the play or they contribute nothing to the story. Do you want examples from Act 3 as well?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kelsey about O'Neill wanting us to focus on the characters and their relationships, but I feel that those passages either do not add to the relationships or tell us things we already knew.
~ Gregory Naigles ~
Pardon the spelling error, should be "the same", not "thesame".
ReplyDelete~ Gregory Naigles ~
Gregory- I would really hate to disagree with you, but every word that an author chooses to write has valid and substantial meaning. Even if you believe there isn't, some people may feel that without those excerpts you classified as "not necessary", the book would not be complete. Just remember, also, that even if something may have been stated that we as readers know, some characters may not have been in the prior scene in which the knowledge was revealed. In addition, the author may want to remind us of some important concepts, qualities, or characteristics that were mentioned earlier but may have been forgotten within the context of the events which just occurred. It is just some food for thought, though; the reason that O'neill opted to do so was his choice and I do not know exactly what he was thinking.
ReplyDeleteDylan: I find it interesting that I agree with some of your reasons (such as the reminding of the reader) but disagree with your conclusion (that every word has substantial meaning). We may have to agree to disagree on this one.
ReplyDelete~ Gregory Naigles ~
I haven't been on in a while, and I see that Sam has had some misunderstanding, per say, with my first post. By saying that the play was "Very well written, especially for a play", my meaning was to say that I am not a huge fan of plays. I enjoy other genres more, such as crime drama and science fiction. An example of my view of different plays: I fancied "The Death of a Salesman", while I did not care for "The Crucible".
ReplyDeleteIn a side note, on the Gregory vs. Dylan exposition, I would have to side with Greg. I do agree that many, if not most of the dialog enhanced the plot. There were some interactions however, such as that of Josie and Hogan at the end of Act II, that I believe were inessential. After the beginning of the conversation, we as the reader knew the outcome of the interaction.
I agree with Dylan on this latest debate. I've started reading Francine Prose's Reading Like a Writer and so far she's taken pains to emphasize how writers are conscience of every word they put down, they agonize over every choice, and how if you read closely, thinking about with EVERY WORD what the author is trying to convey, you will absolutly find that every passage, every insult and every retort essential. When I am finished with Reading I'm going to reread Moon, and I can't wait to see (taking special care with the passages Gregory noted above) what I missed before.
ReplyDeleteI know i'm a little late on this, but I think Josie is a virgin. At the begining of the story, she wont admit to the truth at all. She hides the fact that she loves Tyrone. This is also when she says she's not a virgin. At the end of the play, the truth comes out. Tyrone tells Josie all about the pain he went through after his mother's death, and she admits her love for him. This is also when she says she is a virgin.
ReplyDeleteFirst things first, whoever added the Anonymous post about Hulk Hogan is a hero.
ReplyDeleteMoving on from that I thought this play was strange. Like David I am also not the biggest fan of plays. However I agree with Gregory also, much of the dialog was unnecessary. There were points in the book where I just skipped a few passages because I knew what was going on and wanted to get past it to more relevent dialog. It seemed like Josie was confused about what she wanted, and that confused me. I agree with what Dylan said about how without the long-winded dialog the book wouldn't have a plot. However a play's plot shouldn't stand on on dialog alone. I am imagining seeing this at an actual theater, and I feel like you would just be watching the characters sitting and talking the whole time. It's quite possible that I just didn't understand it fully but overall I thought it was long winded and boring.
Heather - your comment - "So they said they were in love, it would not be the first time that a drunk lied so he could lay his head on a lady’s bosom." made me laugh really hard. Anyways, I agree with you about how this book gives you no connection to the characters. I think that is an important quality for a book.
ReplyDeleteI can honestly say that i completely forgot about this book as soon as I read it, it seemed boring and that absolutely nothing climactic happened.
I finished this book a few days ago and posted then, but I guess it never showed up, so here is another version of what I said.
ReplyDeleteI found this Moon for the Misbegotten to be a good quick read type of a book. I didn't exactly care for the plot of the play, mostly because I was confused on what it was until like act III and I think that part of that was because there was a lot of unnecessary dialogue being said that wasn't exactly clear with what was happening in the play. Another part that confused me was when Josie and Tyrone were under the moonlight. I found what they were talking about would get a little confusing for a few lines and then I'd pick up on what they were talking about. For a play though, I found this to be one of the better ones that I've had to read (being one who doesn't care for reading plays). One aspect of the book that I did like was the sarcasm between Josie and Hogan. Another was the scheme being played out. Both of these aspects helped to keep me reading and like the play. Overall I thought it was a well written play with some drawbacks (as stated above) to it.
Matt Gaudio
I would also like to add that I could see Romeo and Juliet in this play. There were a few connections between the two, but this play took it a step further adding more than just being two lovers.
ReplyDeleteDylan- When I first read the play, I didn't see any night and day connections at first, but then thinking about it, I could see how there was something going on with true personalities during the day and at night there was love and who the people really were. I couldn't quite place it until I read your comment on how this connected to A Midsummer's Night Dream and I totally agree with that.
-Matt Gaudio
After reading people's comments to my post...I can understand why people want to see it preformed. Like Dylan said, there are many ways for lines to be said which could change the entire feeling of the play. Not saying that I am jumping out of my seat to go see it, but it wouldn't be a bad thing if we did. Fair enough?
ReplyDeleteKelsey- I like your idea that Jim not being able to be with Josie is a punishment for him being an alcoholic. When I look at it that way it makes me like the ending. It seems like justice was served in a way and it puts a whole new spin on the book that I hadn't thought of.
My opinion on the whole argument of whether or not Josie is a virgin...I believe that she is. Like Melissa pointed out, Josie does come out and say that she is a virgin, and I just don't see her lying about something like that.
Heather/Greggory/Dylan/anyone else involved in the plot argument: There is a plot to the book, and in my opinion, it is an interesting one. It's not just about people talking, it's about family relationships and personal realationships and not being who people expect you to be(Josie). I might be reading too much into it, but that's what I got from the play. All of the dialogue shows you these points. You kind of have to read inbetween the lines to understand where I'm coming from I think, but from what I read there was more than just people talking to each other.
Just a random side note: I'm not sure why, maybe it's because I enjoy theater, but I'm very happy to be reading that people who usually don't enjoy plays are enjoying Moon for the Misbegotten.
-Jen Rankin
Like Kelsey, I don't really see how Josie changed herself for Jim. I don't think she was using her body to "control" him: she loved him, and could see that he was a wounded, dying man--as she revealed in her final wish for him. I think she was just trying to help a poor forsaken soul, and she certainly had the gall to do whatever that entailed, including "making a fool of herself." While it may seem to some that "nothing" happens over the course of the story, I think a whole lifetime's worth of pent-up pain and anxiety is released in one night when Jim tells his story to Josie. I think this is an example of what a difference even a single person who understands you can make. As for the virginity debate, I don't really think we know either way, and this is probably intentional. Aa good deal of the book's message seems to be about forgiveness: not only forgiveness for others' actions, but also for your own. And part of forgiveness is forgetting something and letting it go, or at least not dwelling on it.
ReplyDeleteHeather, I think maybe you'd like the book to depict an ideal world where all humans found enough pleasure in life that they didn't have to pump chemicals into their brains. I'm no fan of alcohol--or any non-medical drug--myself, but remember that the book is depicting the poor and underprivileged. These people have struggled all their lives without significant gain and faced terrible hardships; meanwhile, the upper classes (Harder) have lived on right next to them without once noticing their predicament! Imagine for a second how that would hurt, and maybe you'll understand why these people have resorted to drugs. Is it a fault of theirs? Probably; but it is also a fault of society.
Gregory, I'm glad you drew our attention to the parts of the book that only conveyed redundant information. However, I disagree that these are "unnecessary." The last time I checked, one iteration of the phrase "I love you" didn't make a very convincing statement; nor would seeing one of the family's arguments convey the fact that these were a regular--and accepted--means of communication. Do stories and lives include repetition? Of course they do, but it's better to reinforce and develop them in parallel with new ones than to leave them forgotten. The wheel was invented many thousands of years ago, but we didn't forget it when we invented the jet engine; instead, we kept improving it: we rubberized and ruggedized it, made it retractable, and integrated it with the new propulsion mechanism to make an airplane.
Sorry about that last analogy: I think it may be past time for bed!
-- Sol Boucher
Hey all, well it seems like my passage (like Matt's) somehow did not post after I sent it before vacation, so now I am making a new one.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I think overall this was a great play and I enjoyed reading through and figuring out everyone’s motives and pasts. I liked the description. It really made you feel like you were there that night, witnessing everything happening and that you were one of the characters, not just an outsider. In this play format, you really learn more about the characters than if you would just read a novel about them. In such a short read, and a short time frame, we learn a lot about the characters and their dreams and feelings for each other. We learn about their pasts and how they influenced how they interact with one another today.
I loved Josie and all that she represented. She is fierce, independent, and not aafraid to be who she is, even faced with being a social outcast. She will tell it like it is, and not afraid to tell you when you are being a complete imbecile or when she knows you are lying straight to her face. She is not like most women back then, who will mind their own business and become a cookie-cutter wide. She has her own mind and opinions and is not afrain to express them. But, that is not all there is to her, which makes her an even better character in my mind. She can still have a huge heart along with those big eyes and can be very forgiving and caring. She wants the best for her brothers so she helps them out, and she waits for Jim, even when she knows he has a long history of not showing up. When he doesn’t, she cares enough to let her emotions flow and yet forgives him when he turns up late and when he shares his tragic past. She is a huge mother figure, yet knows how to give you a kick in the past to wake you up to reality. I loved seeing different sides of her throughout the play.
As for Jim, he is also not what he appears to be at first. You first might have thought him to be a drunken, angry, self-loathing man who was mad at the world and another social outcast. Yet, as we later see, he has a lot of emotional baggage to bear, and is very wounded. As his live goes on, he keeps filling the void where his mother’s love was with drinking and endless one night stands where he wakes up, unsatisfied and even more empty inside. That lonliness and baggage wears on him, to the point where, under the moonlight, there is no life in his eyes and is emotionally dead. He is a hollowed out man whom Josie tries to fill with kindness, love, understnading, and forgiveness. He isn’t the same man at the end of the night. He is still not really alive, but there is a spark of hope in him that allows him to walk away and to try to make a better life for himself. He is a moving character to me, and is truly sweet and understnading underneath, whispering sweet words to Josie and making her feel like a real woman, not treating her like the rest. Jim was one of my favorite characters who really grows in this short amount of time.
ReplyDeleteThe dialogue kept you on your toes, while the witty and somewhat sarcastic remarks pulled you along throughout the story. And there is a plot to this book, even though it is within a short time frame. There is plenty of dialogue that, interspersed with thoughts and events, make for a moving plot. As Sol says, you have to read between the lines, because everything that was said or done happened with a true purpose and was in now way “unnecessary”. Even though some parts were slightly vague and almost incomprehensible at that moment, it made me curious, wanting to read on and learn more, which is something I really like about a book. I do not like knowing everything about a book or play at once, but giving bits and pieces along the way, helping form my own theories and really make me think. As I said in Goldengrove, I have read many of Jodi Picoult’s books and I love them. One thing she does in her stories is have something going on currently but bit by bit, she gives you more information about the characters’ pasts and conversations that help enhance what is going on in the story currently and answers questions you may have. Similar things happened in this play, especially with regard to Jim’s past and his mother, which definetly influenced most, if not all, what he does in the present.
As for Jim, he is also not what he appears to be at first. You first might have thought him to be a drunken, angry, self-loathing man who was mad at the world and another social outcast. Yet, as we later see, he has a lot of emotional baggage to bear, and is very wounded. As his live goes on, he keeps filling the void where his mother’s love was with drinking and endless one night stands where he wakes up, unsatisfied and even more empty inside. That lonliness and baggage wears on him, to the point where, under the moonlight, there is no life in his eyes and is emotionally dead. He is a hollowed out man whom Josie tries to fill with kindness, love, understnading, and forgiveness. He isn’t the same man at the end of the night. He is still not really alive, but there is a spark of hope in him that allows him to walk away and to try to make a better life for himself. He is a moving character to me, and is truly sweet and understnading underneath, whispering sweet words to Josie and making her feel like a real woman, not treating her like the rest. Jim was one of my favorite characters who really grows in this short amount of time.
ReplyDeleteThe dialogue kept you on your toes, while the witty and somewhat sarcastic remarks pulled you along throughout the story. And there is a plot to this book, even though it is within a short time frame. There is plenty of dialogue that, interspersed with thoughts and events, make for a moving plot. As Sol says, you have to read between the lines, because everything that was said or done happened with a true purpose and was in now way “unnecessary”. Even though some parts were slightly vague and almost incomprehensible at that moment, it made me curious, wanting to read on and learn more, which is something I really like about a book. I do not like knowing everything about a book or play at once, but giving bits and pieces along the way, helping form my own theories and really make me think. As I said in Goldengrove, I have read many of Jodi Picoult’s books and I love them. One thing she does in her stories is have something going on currently but bit by bit, she gives you more information about the characters’ pasts and conversations that help enhance what is going on in the story currently and answers questions you may have. Similar things happened in this play, especially with regard to Jim’s past and his mother, which definetly influenced most, if not all, what he does in the present.
I agree with others in that the ending was unexpected and it did make you take a step back and wonder what the heck just happened. It is a very mysterious happening. After they both confessed his love, Jim went off, leaving the person who healed him and practically brought him back to life. I think he did that because after their night in the moonlight, they became healed by forgiveness, love, and understanding that they shared. They could go on with their lives, knowing that nothing was holding them down anymore. Jim felt forgiven for what happened with his mother and the “blonde pig” on the train and didn’t loathe himself as much anymore. HE could go on and made himself a big star without drowning himself in alcohol. Josie knew that people could care for her unconditionally even with her faults and that didn’t have to sleep with someone to feel happy. She could care for them and still be the strong independent character that she is. And she found out how much her father cares for her, in his unconventional way. In the end, she could let Jim go and still be happy, so I did think the author did right in not having them end up together, but instead have them live their lives onward with the lessons they learned that night. They saved each other, which is what I think just needed to happen, nothing more.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I thoroughly enjoy appreciated all this book have to offered and loved reading it. The characters were exciting, witty, deep, and showed you that you cannot judge a book by its cover. The dialogue was funny, moving, and gave you a lot to think about, making you read between the lines and look over passages again to fully understand it. The ending made sense to me and I hope everyone enjoys this play and, like most people, I really hope I get a chance to see this play in real life. It would be a real treat.
http://youmakemetouchyourhandsforstupidreasons.ytmnd.com/
ReplyDeleteDyan/Gregory/anyone else involved- I have to agree with Dylan because as we've been told since we started Honors English, everything is put in a book for a reason, even the things said. Yes, I agree with Gregory that some of the dialogue (especially at the end) was unnecessary, but it was put in their for a reason. I think that most of the dialogue enhanced the little plot that there was and if there had been less, I don't think this book would have much of a plot that everyone could understand.
ReplyDelete-Matt Gaudio
I agree with a lot of you, like Liz and Dakota, in that I didn’t see a whole lot of plot line developing throughout the play.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I did like reading about the different personalities of the characters and how they interacted with each other. I believe that is what made the play interesting, especially the relationship between Josie and her father, as I previously stated in my last post. Josie and Jim’s relationship was a bit cliché, in my opinion. Two hopelessly devoted lovers, one is always trying to heal the terribly wounded (mostly mentally. In this case, Josie was the healer while Jim was the terribly wounded. But this kind of relationship was true for all three of the books. Goldengrove- Nico was the healer and Aaron was the grieving, wounded boy. Although Nico and Aaron weren’t the lovers in the story (Aaron and Margaret were), Aaron in some twisted way, tried to make it happen. He was blinded by his love for Margaret, the love of his life, who he knew would never return. The Return of the Native- Wildeve wanted to “save” Eustacia from the Heath, by running away with her. Diggory Venn wanted to “save” Thomasin from her horrible marriage to Damon Wildeve. I guess this is a popular theme for romantic novels, the hero and damsel in distress.
I have to agree with Matt on this. Nothing is ever put into a work of literature for no reason, and I'm sure the last dialogue has some meaning toward the overall theme of the book. I don't know what it is, I'm in south Carolina and left this book at home, but i will find out. It is also important to remember that this is actually a play, so these lines could explain some actions earlier demonstrated, but not said out loud. This was written for an active audience, so reading the book may have taken some of it's aura away.
ReplyDelete-J Aldin
For the latest Dylan and Gregory debate I'd have to agree with Gregory. While the author chose all of the words with a purpose in mind, I don't believe they were all necessary. I never really thought that any part dragged on for too long though. I think the author did well with keeping things short and sweet and to the point, but occasionally there was a conversation that I felt didn't really add anything to the story.
ReplyDeleteJulie- I'm not sure if Josie is a virgin. It's so confusing because she keeps switching back and forth throughout the book. I'm really not sure what to believe but I'm leaning towards her not being a virgin.
-Hanna Christensen
Okay so im a little late on blogging about this play, due to the fact that ive been extremly busy lately. i finished the story about a week ago and i hope i can summarize all of the ideas i had about the story as if i had just finished reading it.
ReplyDeletemy first impression of the book i must admit wasn't a very good one. i was happy for a quick read, but i've never been a big fan of reading plays, but of course, "you should never judge a book by its cover". when i was introduced to the main characters, Josie being strong, sarcastic, and unique, and Hogan being Josie's father, and a real prankster, i knew i was getting dragged into the book. i really admired Josie's character in the play. i respected that she was strong, and a hard worker, and i respected that she didn't let the towns false perceptions of her bother her. Being on the subject of what the town thought of Josie, and her virginity or lack of, this is for you...
Hanna & Julie-
I believe that Josie was a virgin. it was a little hard for me to grasp, but i finished the book thinking she was a virgin. in the beginning everyone thought she had been with multiple men in the town, but after spending the night with tyrone, she admits to being a virgin due to the fact that tyrone told her that he thought she was a virgin. he thought this because he suspected the men had lied about being intimate with her because they would have felt embarrassed if they had admitted that they hadn't infact been intimate, because they had heard that other men had so easily been with her. But the truth is that none of them had been, but due to possibly feeling embarrassed and inferior infront of other men they had made stories and ultimately created a group of men who claimed to have been with her, and its easier to trust a group who all say the same thing then just one women who says something completely different, and that is possibly why Josie goes along with the rumor.
back on topic, i do have to say i enjoyed the ending of this book much more then "Goldengrove". the ending to "Moon for the Misbegotten" let me think of the different things that could possibly take place after the ending of the story, like tyrone possibly coming back to Josie, or forgiving himself for letting his mother down when it came to drinking, where as "Goldengrove" left me without thought. there were no longer possibilities.
Megan- i really liked what you picked up on from all the books as the theme. i was seeing the same theme throughout these books, but i didn't know exactly how to word it. the idea that one person was trying to save the other usually from their own emotions, is definitly a reacuring idea in all of these books, and im glad you brought that to my attention :)
I just finished A Moon for the Misbegotten, and I find that I can honestly say I thoroughly enjoyed it. Usually, the fact that a book is assigned takes away some of the enjoyment for me. I guess I just don't respond well to the pressure of a deadline for things like reading. I also usually assume I'm not going to like assigned books, as I remember countless hours struggling to get through literature that I didn't find appealing. However, there have always been a few exceptions. For example, when we had to read Of Mice and Men over one summer, it became one of my favorite books. I believe that A Moon for the Misbegotten is one of those exceptions.
ReplyDeleteIn some cases, the play format takes away from stories. Without paragraphs of description, some things can be lost. However, in A Moon for the Misbegotten, I believe that the author said in stage direction and dialogue what a lot of authors can't say with pages upon pages of meticulous description. The relationship between Jim and Josie is beautiful and real. You find yourself caring deeply about what happens to both of them. And the ending is neither a happily-ever-after, nor an apocalyptic dose of misery. It's sad and sweet at the same time. The characters have both undergone change, and though you don't really know what happens in the future, you are satisfied with the ending you're given.
As for whether or not Josie is a virgin, I believe that she is. Josie obviously has incredibly low self esteem, and she seems to be one of those people who make themselves seem more terrible than they are. She feels isolated because of her appearance, and her attitude and lies may make her feel as if she has some sort of control.
And by the way, whoever posted that ytmnd link absolutely made my day.
I think I've been away from this thread for too long. I'll try to respond to everyone:
ReplyDeleteSol: One iteration of 'I love you' can be convincing if said in a particular way, but I get your point. However, your analogy is flawed in this way: The wheel was continued, and improved as you said. However, the repetitions, in my opinion, did not improve the plot or the characters or anything else. The wheel was enhanced and made better, the repetitions didn't make anything better or change anything.
Matt: Yes, everything is put in a book for a reason, but sometimes that reason is no more than just the author thinking it somehow sounds or feels good, or has some relation to the author's life that no one except the author knows. Can you think of a possible reason why some of the extra dialogue was put in, besides to 'enhance the plot' (which it doesn't)? I also disagree with your last point, about whether there would be a recognizable plot without the superfluous dialogue, but then again we're all entitled to different opinions.
~ Gregory Naigles ~
Let me start off by saying that I am not a fan of reading plays. I believe that some of the emotions that the author means to convey across are not shared as well through long written dialouge as they are through performance. So far, I have read the first two acts and have enjoyed it more than I thought I would. I was forcing myself through it at first, until the argument between Hogan and Harder came. It was very entertaining listening to Josie and Hogan harass Harder. I love watching Hogan argue. It is hilarious. My one complaint is that Josie and Hogan are incredibly stereotypical Irishmen. But, that aside, this is definitely one of my favorite plays that I have read.
ReplyDelete-Erik Anderson
So a lot of my comments-to-other-comments are from some of the old blogs because I tried to read from the first to the most recent, so bear with me!
ReplyDeleteFirst I would like to start off by announcing that just like Joanne, this is the first time I have read an entire book in one day! (Or less than a day for that matter) So therefore, I am pretty proud of myself. This shows how this was a very easy read for me. Like many of you have said so far I usually don’t enjoy books in play format, but for some reason I did not mind it at all with A Moon for the Misbegotten. I’m a little confused on how I feel about this play/book actually. While for me it was such an easy read, I do agree with Dakota when she says there was a lack of substance. I think this is maybe because the time period was so short. After finishing the book there seemed no real point to the story in my personal opinion. I did not feel any type of impact, and I can’t really see this book sticking with my memory like some other books. Unlike Goldengrove I wasn’t able to jump into the book and put myself in the character’s situation. It’s not that I don’t think the characters were not developed enough to do so, but that the plot was not developed and structured enough to interest me and help me imagine. I think that’s where the actually watching of the play would come in handy. I felt the story line jumped around too much from one scheme to the next without any closure. In the end nothing seemed to wrap up all of the events during the story, which made me feel like I read a futile story.
I know Sam said if you are going to bash the story then you need to just bash and not second guess yourself, but after reading some comments, some people did make valid points that I thought were very impressive and would like to point out. (By the way Sam, I think your AWESOME AND HALARIOUS! I love how you told people they should just go crazy and bash it, you kill me haha )
Melissa- I thought it was creative and interesting how you made the point that the ending actually left room for the imagination unlike Goldengrove which told you all of the information on what happened in the future. I never would have thought of the ending in such a way and even though I would usually chose Goldengrove over A Moon for the Misbegotten any day; I completely respect and understand your opinion on why you would chose it over Goldengrove.
Even though I did not get the most purposeful meaning out of this book I have to admit along with everyone else that the characters were fantastic. I agree with Olivia when she said that she has never read about a character quite like Josie. I thought Josie was so unique and interesting. I like how dynamic of a character she was and how you would initially perceive her could be completely opposite from the way you do at the end of the play. I agree with Liz and Audrey when Audrey said she imagined Josie like Mrs. Trunchbull from Matilda at the beginning. I looked at the picture Mr. MacArthur posted of Josie and Jim during the play and I imagined Josie much more buff and almost ogre-like. It confuses me how she was so rough inside and out at times, but still supposedly got a countless amount of men from the area (no offense to Josie). Her personality at times just seemed so rugged and harsh you would imagine she would be an outcast. But I think that is why I admire her character so much because she was so incredibly confident. I also loved how “street-smart” and savvy she was, even if it was through indecent, conniving ways. For example on page 23 Josie described how her father made her swindle Jim’s father into forgetting the issue of Hogan not paying the rent. She was told to act like a cute little girl, offer him a drink, give him a courtesy, and bat her eyes at him. Then how even just a little girl she was able to turn the situation into her favor by admitting her father put her up to it so Jim’s father would pay her money. Hogan quoted “I never knew you were such a black traitor, and you only a child”. I thought what Josie did as a little girl was brilliant.
ReplyDeleteDylan- In one of your first comments you asked if Josie and her father were just being “playfully” mean to one another or if they truly meant to be so crude towards each other. I think that the entire time it was more of a playful environment when they argued. I think they both have a great amount of respect for one another because they would never physically hurt one another and in the end will always stand by each other. I also think they have very similar personalities and think alike so this gives them a greater understanding that what they say is not actually personal. I actually loved the way they spoke towards each other. I thought it was clever, witty, and just down-right entertaining. For example one of my favorite quotes between the two was on page 32:
Hogan – “Leaving me are you? When it’s dinner time? Where’s my dinner, you lazy cow?”
Josie – “There’s stew on the stove, you bad-tempered runt. Go in and help yourself. I’m not hungry. Your gab has bothered my mind. I need hard work in the sun to clear it.”
You can tell they just like to pick at each other for the fun of it, but they know it is just for amusement and that is all that matters. I also thought it was really cool that you thought of the relationship in the theme of day in night between A Moon for the Misbegotten and A Midsummer’s Night Dream.
Liz – I agree with you when you say that Jim was a sweet sensitive character deep down. He really seems to have a lot of personal issues that he tries to hide with a front of being a successful man in public and then just tries to wash the issues away with alcohol. But this makes me also agree with Emma’s point on disliking how Josie would back down for a boy. Jim clearly has an alchohol problem but the night that Jim and Josie spend under the moon he is able to open up to Josie and show his true colors. He turns into the sweet, tormented, loveable man that Liz found herself saying “Aww” too. But the following morning at dawn, Jim doesn’t seem to be able to recollect anything that happened that night. After a small reminder he is able to remember but if I were Josie I would be furious at the fact that Jim would be able to forget something so special to them in the first place. Josie acted as if there was no problem and that he did not need to remember, that she was satisfied enough knowing herself. I think that is where Josie is not being a strong enough woman. She should know that she deserves better than some desperate old drunk who is letting alcohol get in the way of their relationship.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of their relationship, this may sound a little dumb, but how did Josie and Jim fall in love in the first place? It starts off with Josie’s brother and father suggesting that Josie and Jim could be a couple but only in a teasing manner. Then all of the sudden Jim comes by like he does every day and after the decision of making one date, they fall in love? I mean I guess that could fall under the “love at first sight” category but they had seen each other before plenty of times! To me it seemed a little ridiculous that after just laying on Josie’s breast Jim was able to say “I love you”. I don’t know maybe I’m just being cynical. I was just wondering what others thought about that…
Kristina- Don’t even worry about asking if whether or not Josie was a virgin because I was wondering the exact same thing! Kelsey and Beverly said they thought she was one, which I can see, but then I don’t understand why she would ever want to lie to her father, of all people, about being a so-called “slut”. Why would you want your father to think you were having sex with all the sweet-hearts she had in town? Melissa posted the quote of Josie confessing to Jim she was a virgin on page 115, but maybe she only said that because Jim wanted that night to be different and seemed to yell at her any time she would talk in the same manner she did previously throughout the book. Also Hogan told Josie that Jim thought she was a virgin so maybe she just lied about being one to please Jim.
Erika - the quote Melissa posted just confused me more when i read it anyways. I agree with what you said about just saying it for Jim. She wanted to please Jim, and he didn't like the way she said she had slept with everyone. Jim seems to be the only one that believes that she is not a slut.
ReplyDeleteI have just finished this book, and it is definitely my favorite play I have read and also my favorite of the summer reading books. It really supprised me how well it translated from acting to written form and how so much was able to fit into such a short book. I loved the arguments that Josie and Hogan would get into, I loved learning about Hogans scheme, and I loved the multiple plot twists. It was great how all of this was able to fit into such an easy read. Thank you once again Mr. MacArthur for having us read such a good book.
ReplyDelete-Erik Anderson
Gregory- I know what you mean when you say details were put in for a reason only the author knows and maybe this is true for this book. No, I can't think of a specific reason why all the extra dialogue was put in other than, as Jesse said, that it is a play and was needed for one reason or another, but that is my opinion.
ReplyDelete-Matt Gaudio
Kristina- yeah it seems like Jim is definitely the only one that seemed to think that way. I think he just convinced himself she was a virgin so that he could have that one perfect night and distort reality. It seemed he had a habit of distorting reality to make life seem more appealing. He used the cover of alcohol to live a worry-free lifestyle.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I was not impressed with this book. It did have very developed characters, and plenty of twists that left me sort of confused as to whether hogan was a kind soul, or the kind of man who would sell his daughter a few dollars. I liked how josie and hogan would team up in order to give people a piece of there mind, like the neighbors. I couldn't help feeling that Josie was the strongman in the operation, always righting the wrongs of hogan.
ReplyDeleteI was somewhat confused by the story because it never gave evidence to what the characters said. I understand it is a play and speech is the primary method of characterization, yet none of the characters were trustworthy to me. I actually wonder if Josie really is a virgin and is too ashamed to say it out loud. It wouldn't be completely out of reason. She could easily have an inferiority complex and try to better herself by lying since she is defensive about how she looks. This kind of plot where it is up to the audience to give the finally judge of character reminds me of "On the Night of January the 26th" where there were multiple endings and it all depended on whether you trusted certain characters. The actors of the play would settle this with how they acted.
When I first picked up A Moon for the Misbegotten, it sucked me in immediately. It dug its claws in and pulled, and I found it hard to get away. I loved the bickering between Hogan and Josie, I felt like Josie wasn't the stereotypical woman of that time, and that she had her own plans and her own way of getting through the day and didn't care how she did it. I liked that she also wasn't that girl who was thin, pretty, sweet, loving, etc... She was different. And that endeared her to me.
ReplyDeleteThough after a couple pages I did find myself growing slightly irritated with the constant mood changes. Ranging from talking gently and fondly to speaking furiously or defensively. It made my head spin sometimes! I felt that at least occasionally they should attempt to try and feel one emotion for at least a page or two. Instead I often grew weary of the emotion changes and felt I was reading about two bipolar Irishmen (I mean that as no insult to individuals suffering from bipolar disorder or to Irishmen)
The relationship between Jim Tyrone and Josie made me hopeful and sad at the same time. When they talked about their moonlit date, the way Josie would talk about it seemed that she was trying to just brush it off as just another night, but I could almost hear the longing in her voice. Despite trying to cover her love for Jim, she also seemed to want it shown so he could know.
When Hogan came home from the Inn "drunk" the way he kept saying how she'd (Josie) find out soon enough what he was talking about. Almost trying to provoke her to ask what he was talking about, seemed at the time like he was serious and really quite wasted. But then, when I found out it's really just another one of his scams, I re-read that part and realized how obvious it actually was.
Jim Tyrone. Alcoholic, pathetic, sweet, pitiable, dead. All words I think describe him. It's quite blatant that he loves Josie and hates that she has such a false reputation and that she doesn't care to correct it. I think their "date" was more sad than anything. I think it was a prelude to his departure. And when he said he woke up feeling good for once, I believe it was because he was able to come to terms with everything and empty that mind pressing load he had on him, onto Josie and have her there to comofort him. My thoughts are that when he left, he really was going off to die in (at least relative amounts of) peace.
- Lauren Gustafson -
So, sorry this isn't very original from everyone else's comments but it must be said. The characters in the story had depth and such complexity that the story seemed much more realistic and made the story more moving. The character i noticed that had the most layers was Josie. When I first started the I thought that Josie would be a bitter and tough woman who was alone and angry at the world. I think I thought this because the way O' Neill described her as so be she was almost a freak, so I assumed that she would have been made fun of and not accepted in her community therefor making her bitter and isolate herself. But, as i eagerly went through the play i was quickly corrected. I really enjoyed Josie's character. I thought that her character made the story more interesting and she just seemed like she was always in control of any situation in the story. I have to agree with Lauren, she broke the stereotype of a women during the time and i think that made me like her more, that she was so independent and she was her own person. I had a tough tough time with Jim's character during the ending scenes when he was drunk and with Josie. Like Dylan said in the first comment the way he spoke was just all over and hard to connect all over the place. The thing I really like about the story was Josie and Hogans relationship. I though it was really funny how they just made fun of each other on a daily basis and they just seemed very close. I thought that their relationship was going to be abusive and just bad because of how he treated and talked about his sons. I thought because of Josie's size and less than perfect reputation that he would hate her too, but I was clearly very wrong and I really loved their bond. One of the first questions I had was why did Josie stay with her father and not leave like her brothers. But, after reading further I think it was because Josie reminded her father of her mother and she and Hogan do love each other.
ReplyDeleteOver all I really liked the book, it was one I finished rapidly and it wasn't something i wanted to put down. I was always drawn in to the story and too confused about the plot. I like that it was a play because it made the raiding seem to go quickly. Also, I'm a very visual person so i could clearly see the story in my head by the vivid description and motions described. Also, the story was just a good plot and was very interesting and i really enjoyed it. It wasn't boring at any point and i never had to take a brake from it. But, that being said there were somethings that i didn't like to much. I was a little confused about Josie being a virgin. Is she or isn't she? Because like Kristina and Erika said I think that she wasn't but Jim loved her so much that he convinced himself that she was. But, at the end Hogan laughs to Josie about Jim thinking she was a virgin and said, "Is it you who's the virgin? Faith, that would be a miracle, no less!" (133) Josie, "I told you to stop lying, Father." (134) Thats when I thought that maybe she was a virgin and she and Hogan lied to lied to make Josie more tough, maybe? I'm not sure why they would do this so I'm pretty sure she wasn't a virgin.
The ending… Um WHY DID SHE LET HIM GO? They both knew that they loved one another, so why did she let him go or not go with him? That drove me nuts! I kinda liked it at the same time, it made the ending tragic and, not so sound heartless, but refreshing to have an ending that wasn't the typical happy ending they all lived happily ever after. I get sick of every thing ending perfectly because lets be honest how often does everything actually work out? The emotions the ending made me feel also proved how much I liked the book because not often does a book make me feel that much. So, it just proved how well O' Neill wrote the play.
- Ian Friedrich
Ian, I loved your comment "The ending… Um WHY DID SHE LET HIM GO? They both knew that they loved one another, so why did she let him go or not go with him?" I think this is exactly the reason the book ended the way it did. It kept the reader guessing and thinking about the book. This also gives more popularity to the book in my opinion. I think this was written well for long term.
ReplyDeleteI read a few more of the more recent comments and made a few comments of my own;
ReplyDeleteErika- I didn't get the purpose of the play either, i got the plots and such but I don't think I got the deeper reasons of the play. For example, I'm not sure why the moon was so important or in the novel so much. That sounds wicked stupid i realize, and i know I should under stand it better because its part of the title, but I don't so if any one would like to explain to me that would be fantastic. Also, I think you brought up a valid question about how Josie and Jim feel in love. It seemed like he just showed up coincidentally, they realized they love each other, and there was the basis of the play. I think i would have liked it more if there were more background info about how the two felt and acted together before she had the scheme of money in her head. And I could help but think that maybe she was so in love with him for that reason. I really liked how you commented on Liz's and Audrey's comment about Josie being like Ms. Trunchbull. That exactly how I thought Josie would be, and then i just imagined her like that throughout the play, but nicer. Which I think made it tougher for me to she her as someone Jim loved because Ms. Trunchbull made me cry when I was a child.
Lauren- I really thought your idea of the ending, Jim going to die peacefully, was really cool and now i think about it I think so too. It just seems like it would make sense of why Josie didn't go after him when he left and when he said good bye it seemed like he was saying good bye for good. Also, it would make sense of why he was finally selling the farm to Hogan. The constant mood swings of the characters got to me too, I think it made the story hard to follow sometimes because i couldn't tell if a character was being serious or just joking. I found the date kind of sad too because i thought it showed the misery of Jim and the longing of Josie and just how neither would get what they wanted. Excepted for jim did get his peace, but Josie never got Jim which made it sad because you knew she wanted to be with him so badly.
Finally, i have a few question mostly about the moon… I feel stupid to ask but I just don't see the symbolizm there, and I feel like its blatantly obvious. Could someone please explain it? I read someones comment about it being the difference if night and day but I still just don't quite grasp the concept.
- Ian Friedrich
David- I didn't look at it from the perspective but i totally agree, the book definitely was written from long term and i think that some of the confusion made the book easier to become completely involved in. I feel like this play is something that will be able to relate to people from any decade and generation without losing its appeal.
ReplyDelete-Ian Friedrich
Ian- I hate finding symbolism in things, so my idea is probably "wrong", but here is my interpretation of the moon. The moon is probably somehow connected to love, loneliness (in CATS when the one sings "Memory" it is under the moonlight and she dreams of happiness again), and wishing and hope [you know "when you wish upon a star" (even though the moon isn't really a star, but that is besides the point)]. Also I'll try to clarify what I meant by "night and day": You remember watching A Midsummer Night's Dream in Mrs. Benton's class, right? If so (because that was sort of rhetorical) do you remember that she told us to watch for how the characters acted in the city and daytime (very refined and well-mannered) versus in the forest at night (a bit more mischevious, dangerous and carefree; not so refined and well-mannered)? In other words, the townsfolk knew the four elopers in one way, but they acted differently (let out their "true colors") when not being held to those same standards. I think that this whole double personality idea is carried through to "Moon for the Misbegotten"-- the town knows Josie as a tough, mean, and strong woman; Hogan is the drunk Irishman with a short temper; and Jim is the hopeless drunk. However this night in which the story takes place reveals Josie to be compassionate and not as tough (if that is an appropriate word to use) as she needs to be to maintain how others view her; Hogan is sweet and gentle (although still a short-tempered drunk); and Jim, we find out, has had a rough past and is carrying around lots of emotional baggage. So just think of it as "the nighttime allows the characters to reveal who they really are and what they are feeling inside". I hope that this clarifies a few things, and I hope it makes sense. However, this is just my screwed-up thinking, and there are undoubtedly many more well-formed ideas behind the meaning of the moon in the story.
ReplyDeleteIt's a little late by this point, but I just finished up the last of my summer reading, so I figured I'd better make my way over here and post some comments.
ReplyDeleteI have to be honest, I really didn't like this play at all. I found it entirely impossible to be interested in the main characters or their stories. Many people have praised the screenplay for creating very real, believable characters; but in the end I actually thought that this was a poor choice. By making his characters so vividly fallible, O'Neil actually made me like them less. Why should I feel bad for Josie and Tyrone when they're both drunken, foul mouthed punks? Is that really the sort of thing that's supposed to be charming?
I can see why this play is important in terms of its impact of American literature, but I personally found it to be a very dull read.
This book was a quick and easy read for me. But I really feel like I'm missing out on the story (How did Jim and Josie's love begin? Did I just completely miss that part of the book?) because this play is a sequel, at least that's what the summary on the back of my book says. I'm pretty sure I read all the comments on here and no one else mentioned it which is kind of surprising..
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I thought A Moon for the Misbegotten was very well written and realistic. I was never expecting what would happen (especially Hogan's last scheme to get Josie and Jim together) which made the play really enjoyable. I thought the ending was great, I was disappointed that Jim and Josie wouldn't be together but it was obvious that they accepted their love and found themselves. When I first started reading this play I was wondering what the point of it was, but by the end it was clear. Like basically everyone on here, I would love to see it performed! Also, I can relate to Josie's banter with her father because I banter with my parents too :). However, it was definitely more humorous between her and Hogan.
I saw a few people debating on whether or not Josie is a virgin and I think she is, mainly because of her confession. Why would she lie to the man she loved about something like that? It doesn't even seem like a lie that would help her in any way so she must have been telling the truth.
-Ashley Donor
I'm not saying that I think Josie isn't a virgin, but to give Ashley an answer of why she would be a virgin when she told her love she wasn't, I think it could be that she didn't want to disappoint him. If your love truly believed something that made you a better person, would you really want to tell him the ugly truth? If she was never going to see him again anyway why leave him with a bad memory of yourself?
ReplyDeleteNow that I have said all that, I do have a feeling that she isn't a virgin because of her confessions, but I can also see why people would think she was. Having been with so many men may make her look all the tougher. A woman who doesn't care of her appearance, is big, sleeps with men doesn't care. It makes her seem like a tougher woman which I think is what she wants people to see.
Like Liz, I loved that Audrey pictured Josie to look like Ms. Trunchbull. Matilda is my favorite children's book, which I happened to read at the beginning of the summer, and now that the idea has been put into my head, I can totally see it! She's a big woman who likes to be tough and for everyone to know it. They both are very independent women. Their difference is Ms. Trunchbull hated men. She wouldn't want to be associated with one ever. Josie, meanwhile, found a true love and claims to have been with many men. Their personalities were totally different, but their appearance is very similar.
ReplyDeleteBeing that I just read this book this summer, I am surprised I didn't see it. But kudos for Audrey for seeing it.
Katie- I disagree with what you said about disappointing Jim by telling him the truth. I think that if you truly love somebody, you should not hold back any secrets. And if your lover truly loves you, they will understand. It seems that Josie and Jim have a pure relationship and truly care about one another. They have no reason to, and therefore most likely would not, lie to or keep secrets from one another. Also, their night under the moon was almost like a "cleansing"-- a coming clean of all the horrid events that went on in each of their lives (well, more Jim than Josie, but I hope you understand what I mean). It would be a perfect time for Josie to reveal that she was a virgin and be accepted for who she is. As for their leaving and being left with a bad memory, I think that they had no intention of parting until the following day. They were cleansing themselves to make themselves pure to start a new, fresh chapter in their lives. It is not until page 145 (in my copy, at least) when they first hint at going separate ways: “(Jim: Suddenly remembers everything…and fights desperately to control [himself]. He turns towards the road.) Josie: ‘No! Don’t Jim! Don’t go like that! You won’t see me later! You’ll never see me again now’…”
ReplyDeleteWhen I started this book, I thought it would be a quick read like everyone else said. But actually, it took me a long time to read for two reasons: most of the time I was bored with the constantly repetitive banter between Josie and Hogan or Josie and Jim. But when I was reading, it took me a lot of time because I had to read slowly to try to understand what O’Neill really meant. I felt like there should have been some deeper meaning to what was said or SOMETHING else that I was missing. But I didn’t find much. As far as I can tell, I agree with Heather and Gregory in that it was basically a lot of long winded chats. The chats revealed some about the characters and O’Neill touched on a few good issues (putting on a façade for the world, sin following you forever…). But, I would have liked it a lot more if something had actually happened – maybe if Josie and Jim tried to be together, or if Josie and Hogan had realized that their trickery doesn’t get them anywhere, or if Josie had left the farm.
ReplyDeleteI didn’t like how we never got to know the truth about anything. That might be a hold up for all plays; in works written as plays, almost all of what we learn about the characters is through what the character says about himself or what others say about him. The issue is that neither of which are reliable: characters like Josie can lie or pretend to be different from who they really are; other characters, like the men at the bar, can give misinformation because they don’t actually know the character. We also miss the verbal intonations and implications that would show more about the characters. A certain amount of ambiguity is an effective literary device, but as it is, I did not like the way I was kept guessing about everything in this book.
Connor, great post. Foul mouthed punks... I love it. I do agree with you in saying that that is no reason to feel bad for them. What I think many people wished for is that they stayed together at the end of the book. This may have made for a happier audience in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteDylan, I totally see your point. What I said above was just a suggestion that I viewed as a plausible reason why she would lie to Jim. There were a lot of lies in the book that always had sketchy reasonings and I felt they were hard to determine whether they were true or not. I tried to see the side of both points and just from the type of play it was and the kind of relationship she had with her dad, it seems totally possible for her to have lied and her father to have lied about everything. I agree with Stephanie that this book always keeps the reader guessing what the truth is and that part I do not like. I like to know facts. What is true and what is not.
ReplyDeleteAt the end, there is still one burning question left unanswered, at least for me:
ReplyDeleteWhy did Tyrone leave? Why didn’t Josie go after him?
WHY DIDN’T THEY TRY?
Actually that’s three questions, but they’re all about the same.
Jim and Josie would have made such a perfect couple – both have sinned, both cannot make a meaningful connection to anyone else. As we saw, they could help and comfort each other.
My only thought is that perhaps the reason they are perfect for each other is also keeping them apart; each one can live with the other because they are the same, but because they both feel “dirty,” neither of them is willing to let go of the past to make their relationship work.
*Jim feels that he is not pure enough to be with Josie, whom he sees as a perfect virgin woman.
*Josie feels that if she told Jim about who she really is and about her past with all the other men, he would be repulsed just like she was shocked about Jim’s story about the blonde on the train. I believe that Josie is not a virgin because otherwise, she would not have stayed with Jim knowing what she knew. She was ok with Jim’s past and able to love him still because she is like him.
In the light of the moon, they were given a chance at being together. Even though their relationship is misbegotten (thanks for posting the definition Sam!) – they both have murky pasts that get in the way of their potential future together – they are able to forget the past and simply be in love. But, when the moon sets and the sun rises again, Jim decides that the relationship will not work and leaves. The moon was almost like a gift for the two misbegotten lovers, but a temporary one that could not last.
So I suppose I answered my own question, but I still think that this is not a good enough justification for them not to even try. I loved the temporary love Jim and Josie had, and even though it would have been hard, even though their love was misbegotten (ill-conceived), they really should have tried to be together.
Liz:
ReplyDeleteLOVE the Twilight connection! I totally agree.
I didn’t like it when Edward left. In fact, I hated that part of New Moon.
I didn’t like it when Tyrone left. In fact, I hated that part of A Moon for the Misbegotten.
Again, the major issue I had with this book was that I hate how none of the characters changed or developed. In fact, they were painfully stagnant. There was just a hint of something happening between Jim and Josie, but it sputtered out by the end, leaving all the characters just how they began. I would have liked it if Jim could get over what he did and at least give it a try with Josie. Jim’s “excuse” (a lame excuse) was that he didn’t want to tempt himself. However, Josie was probably the only person who would put up with Jim, knowing what he did. The only way Jim could have overcome the temptation was to expose himself to it. She was the only one who could have helped him defeat the temptation and finally be able to connect to somebody on a deeper level.
Stephanie, I guess I disagree that they were "perfect" for each other. I think it’s almost more like star-crossed lovers (or maybe I just think that saying star-crossed lovers sounds cool). While I accept that you think Josie is not a virgin, I think she is and that therefore she is cleaner than Jim. I don’t think that her staying with Jim means definitely (though you never know) that she’s not a virgin. I think she would have stayed either way. I don't like to think of it as "well, I can't get anyone better so I may as well be with the one person who will take me." Not the way love should work. I think she stayed because she loved him, possibly irrationally. I don't know if it is because she truly did or because she convinced herself to love him (I think the former is more likely), but I think she stayed because she loved him. I think that they fell apart because Jim was emotionally dead, and Josie knew it. At the end of Act 3, Josie says “to sit here with the dead hugged to my breast” and then in Act 4 when Jim says he will leave she says “You’ll never see me again now and I know that’s what’s best for us both.” Josie may not be perfect, but she’s not emotionally dead and she has hope for the future. Jim has lost hope and is ashamed to drag Josie down to that despairing level and Josie realizes that Jim can never really be happy again and so he can’t be happy with her. I see it as Josie letting him go and realizing that it cannot happen (hence star-crossed lovers). I don’t think their actual pasts have as much to do with it as the way their pasts have affected who they are now. Jim’s past has made him “dead” while Josie’s, pure or impure, has not dragged her down to that level. She doesn’t feel the same horrible remorse that Jim feels. So, yes, they could have tried but I think they both knew it would be pointless. And while occasionally it can be a good experience to try things that are pointless, I think that this was not one of those times. Anyway, this is just my take on this (and tangentially an explanation on the “why did she let him go” question that many people seem to be asking) but I have given this a substantial amount of thought. Feel free to disagree! I agree about the characters not really developing though. You see the back story and why they are how they are but they don’t change much in time you see them.
ReplyDelete-Beverly Naigles
This play does not only rival Romeo and Juliet in the complexity of their relationship. To me, it seems far more tragic.
ReplyDeleteJim is one of the most defeated characters I've ever read about, and it is terribly depressing. To see someone so beaten down and hopeless is far more depressing to me than to see a character die. Jim goes through life with no hope; his past has killed him, and he is essentially a zombie.
I agree with Beverly, that Josie let him go because he would never be happy with her. Jim was so deep in remorse that he didn't even seem to want happiness for himself. He is truly pathetic. Maybe she could have helped him if she had gone after him, though. It could have been an error in judgment that cost them both a happy future- but I don't think that's true. Someone as depressed as Jim is generally determined to stay depressed; there's a point in sadness where you just stop trying to be happy.
I've come to really like reading plays. While there is a certain sense of apathy in the dialogues that require a pair of actors to portray it justly, no other literature can relay a story more efficiently than a good old Cue-book. It's also double-spaced, so its twice as fast to read! :D
ReplyDeleteI definitely prefer this story over that of Romeo & Juliet. The Irish family has jauntiness and tact where the Montagues and the Capulets have become sort of the robots of tragedy. The romance is also far more complex - while the love of Romeo and Juliet is forbidden, they're in ITALY. They've got labyrinthine passageways and abandoned vineries in which they can meet up in secret. For some reason they tend to choose balconies, at which point anyone could figure out pre-emptively that their relationship is doomed.
Josie and Jim are much older than Romeo and Juliet, but with an older age comes many more morals and experiences that can become entangled if two different people try to connect. Jim is basically a husk of a man: he dealt with his depression in entirely the wrong way, letting it eat away at his insides until there were no insides left. Brittany's use of the word "zombie" is completely fitting. Josie's quick tongue and domineering disposition instantly made me like her.
I think if I finished explaining all the things i brought up, I'd end up having written two essays!
-Billy Sprout
I finished this book a while ago but as I was on vacation at the time I have not as yet posted for it. This was a very interesting piece. It seemed very deep for the abruptness of both the story and the time within the story. Eugene O'neill managed to tell a lot about his characters with mainly discussion and very few actions. Jim Tyrone , for example is the classic unfulfilled wealthy character taken to the extreme. When he explains his back story his his emotional torment is almost palpable. This story, like The Return of the Native, there is a lot of manipulation of the characters, mostly by Hogan. The one thing that I did not like about this story was the lack of overall meaning. The only morals I could discover was that if you love them let them go and that people are not always as they appear.
ReplyDeleteAfter letting this play sink in for a few weeks and looking at what everybody else has said about it, I feel like either I missed the point to the play or it all went over my head. Unlike Mr. MacArthur's guess, THIS was actually my least favorite of the three works we read. This play had too much ambiguous grey area for my liking. As already discussed previously, I was left guessing as to whether or not people were truly being honest or lying half of the time. The fact that the play was completely centered around two characters and one single night made it drag; there was not as much action or different conversations as other plays which I have read-- for example, "A Raisin in the Sun" (which by the way, I thought was very drawn-out but still much more appealing than "Moon for the Misbegotten"). I guess it just comes down to the fact that I am not one for reading about hopeless love since I was not a huge fan of "Romeo and Juliet" either. Truthfully, this work was very forgettable to me; it did not leave me with any impression which will stay with me-- something which distinguishes great works from all other works.
ReplyDeleteDylan- I really liked your interpretation on the symbolizm of the moon and your connection to it with "A Midsummer Night's Dream." It is not screwed up one bit and I think you're totally right. The night time is mysterious and in this play the characters showed a different side- the true side of themselves at night. The tough Jim Tyrone gets all drunk and emotional while the independent Josie lets her guard down and turns to being honest with Jim. I always liked how authors use the contrasts between day and night and how they affect the characters and it is one of the few things I like about this play.
ReplyDeleteI have to admit, I really enjoyed reading A Moon for the Misbegotten. I liked that it was short and to the point, and nothing felt like it was condensed, or that big parts were missing. I also enjoyed the ending- it was realistic that Josie and Jim didn't end up together.
ReplyDeleteI loved the characters, especially Josie; her strength was admirable, and it was nice to see that she had a sensitive side and wasn't made of stone. I think that she is an empowering character for women to read about, knowing that she is capable of standing up for herself and isn't the "damsel in distress".
The characters seemed very real to me, because you could see each ones' weakness and their struggles with them- alcohol being the main weakness.
There was humor, sadness, anger, embarassment, heartbreak, and so many other emotions in this book, and that is what made the book for me.
Marissa
Stephanie and Beverly, I am struggling with a lot of the same questions as you.
ReplyDelete1) Did Josie really love Jim?
My answer is yes, but I am not sure. Josie has had so many one night stands (or so she says), how do we know if this is real or not. I want to believe it is real, but I do not know. I do not think O'neill does a good enough job expressing a connection between Jim and Josie...if there is meant to be one. My only basis for believing that Josie loves Jim is that without her love this story would mean nothing. It would just be another one night stand, and no one would care when Jim left.
2) Is Josie a Virgin?
My personal opinion is yes. I believe that Josie thinks her purity will be viewed more as an imperfection than a perfection because of the way she looks. I believe Josie thinks without the made up relationships, people will think men are not interested in a 180 lbs smack talking beast. So she makes lies about all the men she has been with to make herself seem desirable in other people's eyes as well as her own. Even though the only eyes she cares sbout are Jim's.
3) Why did Jim leave?
The book leads us to believe it is because it is better for both of them, but I do not see that. I would like to believe that Josie could have saved Jim from his drinking problems. And even though Josie might be too good for Jim or the other way around, that is not a reason to leave each other. A relationship is not about who is better, but two people that love each other regardless of shortcomings. Finally, many people have talked about the symbolism of the moon. The moon representing their relationship, once the moon is gone and the day has come their relationship is no more. Well, i would just like to say the moon comes back!!
4) Would things have been different if Josie wasn't under the false impression that Jim was selling the farm the next day?
I believe Jim and josie would have lasted if it wasn't for Hogan's false message. I would like to believe that that night represented a turning point for Jim. He could have either stayed a drunk or filled his empty spots with Josie's love, instead of alcohol. I believe Josie's decision to push more alcohol on Jim was what made him blind to her love, and what caused their whole relationship to spiral down.
These are just my thoughts on some of the controversial questions in this book, but I am still not sure I agree with my own answers 100% and would love to hear what other people think.
Heather, I believe that Jim left because it was what needed to happen in order for Josie to truly grow within herself. If Jim were to stay he could have potentially hindered her growth and she could have lost a majority of her independence. However, I also agree with the symbolism of the moon not really being a true representation of their relationship. I believe their relationship is over for good and Jim is not going to come back, like the moon does every night.
ReplyDeleteBut of course that is just my opinion!
-Dakota Gagliardi
I have not yet read any comments for this book. I thought that A Moon for the Misbegotten was an easy understanding book but it lacked any real depth. I really would like to know more about what happened before this book like how Josie and Jim came to love each other. I did apperciate Josie's strong character and how she didn't take any crap especially from her father. She always put him back in his place. I always laughed at the names they called each other though like old goat and loon :). Josie's character and personality weren't what I would expect of from a woman during her time period. But I liked how she was strong and still had a heart at the same time. Jim and Josie seem good for each other because of their past sins and understanding and forgiveness towards each other but of course they can't be together which I still don't understand why.
ReplyDeleteCorri Swart
Is it just me or does it seem like this play wasn't really set in Connecticut?
Heather -
ReplyDeleteI like your answer to question 1: Does Josie really love Jim?
I agree that she really does, even though I can't really see why. I think that at first, she pretended to love him to carry out her scheme she had planned with Hogan. But this was the opportunity she needed to open her heart to Jim and admit that she loved him. However, their love, unfortunately, is misbegotten, never meant to work. The relationship is too much about what Jim needs and not about what Josie needs. I think I see this now because before, I was so focused on how Josie could help Jim that I forgot to ask why Josie wanted Jim.
I love how Heather pointed out that the moon comes back! ...There could have been a chance for the two lovers. But I think that Jim decided to leave not just because it was better for both of them but because he was too scared. He was afraid of being in a relationship because that would mean facing his past in order to forget it. He was horrified that he confessed to Josie what he had done on the train and showed himself to her in such an honest and vulnerable way. This proves that he is not ready to be in a relationship. He would rather escape back to the city where he is just another face, where he can be with women who don't care about what he feels. I think it's cowardly, actually.
I agree with Heather's answer to question 4: Would things have been different if Josie wasn't under the false impression that Jim was selling the farm the next day?
If Josie hadn't been so blinded by her scheme to trick Jim, they may have had a chance of a relationship. If the two had spent the night under different circumstances and Josie had been able to open her heart to him from the beginning instead of getting Jim drunk, they may have had a chance. But, by the time Josie admitted to herself that she loved him, Jim had already decided that he had to leave.
I thought that this play had a slow, but witty and interesting plot. There reallly wasn't much action in the play, just a lot of drinking, talking and scheming. But, when i was reading i couldnt tell who was telling the truth and who was scheming, and thats what made me able to finish this play. I also liked how developed all the characters were. By the end of the play I felt i had known all the characters at one point in my life.
ReplyDeleteHeather-
ReplyDeleteAbout Josie being a virgin, I think that she isn't, mostly because of what the others say about her in the book. Why would her father talk to Josie about her loss of virginity and how she had all of those men over their house if it didn't really happen? Even though they were a disfunctional family, what type of father would want his daughter to not be a virgin? I think she was proud not to be a virgin because it made her feel good to be wanted by a man, especially because she despised her physical appearance, and that is why she got upset when she was told that she was a virgin.
Marissa
Corri, Connecticut back then was very different than Connecticut is today. Back then, it had a lot of farms and a lot of rural areas. Tolland back then had only a couple thousand people (if that) and was mainly a farming community. In the 1950s, suburbia started to take over, and it is still taking over previously rural areas now. It seems like the play wasn't set in Connecticut because the state had a very different character back then.
ReplyDeleteAs I've said in my posts on other books, this was by far my favorite book, enough to read it twice. And I'll admit, Josh, that part of the reason it was my favorite was the Irish farmers. Other than that, I really liked how quick and easy it was to read, while still giving out a lot of information. I first thought that reading a play would be dull, but it wasn't at all. And even though this was another tragic love story (which I despise), A Moon for the Misbegotten didn't bother me at all.
ReplyDeleteI think the biggest reason why I liked this book even though it was a tragic love story was how real it seemed. To me, Eustacia's ridiculous behavior in The Return of the Native was almost too absurd. Perhaps it was the fact that I like Josie's attitude towards life, the "it sucks but you move on" sort of lifestyle. You could tell she and her dad loved each other, even with all the bickering. Her dad's way of trying to coyly match up Josie and Tyrone sort of reminds me of the reddleman's attempt to help Thomasin be with Wildeve. Finally, Josie and Tyrone's love was realistic and had a good ending, I think. Yes, they loved each other, but they both knew it could never be. They had the one night of being together, which they will both carry for the rest of their lives, and then they moved on. No sneaky meetings for months, no trying to run off to Paris (Eustacia should have read this book). I personally believe that sometimes a love that lasts a short time and leaves the pair with happy memories is just as good as a lifelong partnership, if such a partnership can never be. Finally, I'm glad Josie and Eustacia took such different routes to try and achieve the same goal, because that will make for a relatively simple essay.
And I agree with Gregory (weird, I know) in the post above. It's pretty shocking when you realize how much this state has changed over the years. You can still see the rock walls scattered around that were used as fences (although I do know people that still use them). I found myself forgetting this story took place in Connecticut quite a bit.
ReplyDeleteAshley, I thought you made a very good point in talking about the “sad and sweet” ending. In many books, the ending seems too happy to be real. In others, so many bad things happen that it is hard to believe this conglomerate of evens could happen to one person it is unbelievable. This play seemed to have a realistic ending to me. It also left a little gray area in which the reader could form an ending that suited what they believed would happen in the story. This made the play believable to me.
ReplyDeleteAlex, for the morals of the story, one that you motioned really jumped out at me. This was “if you love them, let them go”. I believe this was shown not only between Josie and Jim, but between Josie’s family. She helped her siblings escape from the house so they could start better lives, while staying to take the blame and help out her father.
A moon for the misbegotten proved to be an admirable read. O’neill was able to develop both deep and interesting characters. Josie proved to be a woman who was strong in stature, but even stronger in heart. Her interactions with Hogan and Tyrone display her strong character.
ReplyDeleteI think writing this piece of literature as a play was a good choice. The constant wit and sharp dialogue kept the story interesting. Hogan and Josie’s classic exchange with Stedman Harder proved that O’Neill’s humor knew now bounds.
I found that the story became confusing in parts due to the various schemes and motives of the characters. I also found it hard at times to tell which characters were drunk and which characters were pretending to be drunk and how this influenced their actions.
I agree with most of my fellow bloggers in that the ending was chosen correctly. Most sappy love plays end so happily that instead of giving a standing ovation you have to monitor your gag reflex. I think that by giving the reader no clues as to what happens after the play ends it becomes more realistic. The reader assumes whatever they want about the future of Josie and what type of person she will become now that her cover is blown. I'm happy that everything didn't work out perfectly in this play, that would have been a cop out.
ReplyDeleteChris, would you almost dare to say that is perhaps "stirred your soul to great deeds"?
ReplyDeleteLol
ReplyDeleteBecz, while it was an exceptional piece of literature It did not go as far as to stir my soul to great deeds. Such a compliment is reserved for true literary masterpieces such as Goldengrove.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Troy on the Connecticut issue. I kept having to remind myself throughout my reading that the play's setting was Connecticut. Now that I've finished all the books I can now say this was my least favorite of them all. I'm still not even sure what happened. Like Chris I was confused who was drunk and sober at different times. I did not enjoy it, and I was glad it was short.
ReplyDeleteI have to say that after letting this book sink into my head for some time, I still am not exactly sure what the plot was. It just went right over my head and I don't think that was the intention of this book. Although a simple read, this would have to be my least favorite because there was really no plot at all formed in this play.
ReplyDelete-Matt Gaudio
My thoughts exactly Matt, even looking back I'm still thinking what happened? It's possible it just all went over my head, but from what i can still remember it seems like all they did was talk.
ReplyDeleteSome thoughts to Heather’s controversial topics:
ReplyDeleteJim and Josie have a long way to go and a lot about their lives to change if they ever expect to be together happily, but I think Josie really did love Jim. I come to that conclusion because we see another side of her when she is with him. In the morning, Jim didn’t remember at first what went on the night before, but he doesn’t have the sickly feeling he has when waking up with other girls. It is the first time he feels forgiveness about his mom and peace with his life. He may have forgotten details, but the fact that the emotion they drew from each other was lasting and changed their outlook from then on, shows their love.
I think that Josie is a virgin. It seemed like their whole night together, Jim was telling Josie to stop bluffing and just be real with him. Josie has a lot of pride, but we see that night that she even showed “maternal tenderness.” I think being the scandal of the neighborhood is a front. There’s a lot more to Josie than what her neighbors see. Hogan may not know she’s a virgin exactly, but I think they have an understanding between each other and he knows she’s not all she puts on to be.
Jim left for the same reason I said before, love doesn’t just fix everything. So many things would have to be worked out for them to live happily, the biggest factor being Jim’s alcoholism. Love has to have room to grow, but if she can’t rely on him and they both have their own issues to work out, it would wear them down.
At first, I was going to say that the night would have happened differently if she hadn’t been under the false impression that Jim was selling the farm, but the result would have been the same. I like your points, about Josie pushing alcohol on him because of that, which was the downturn of the relationship. I still believe that they would have ended up apart and it was an appropriate ending. Reality isn't always a happily ever after, and problems like covering up who you really are (in Josie's case) or alcoholism and grief over death (in Jim's case) can prevent the ending we all want to read.
This was the first piece that I finished, and not only did I finish it in one day, but I also loved it.
ReplyDeleteThe beginning was was a little off topic and out of place once I finished the pay. However I realized that it showed the softer side of a character that would until a good deal later seem very harsh and uncaring. It also helped me to truly connect with her. As the oldest of four I can understand her need to help her brother, even if it meant putting what she wanted put of the picture for a while. She longed for love that she may never have because she needed to be strong for her brothers and stand up to there father.
The scene under the moon showed the real Josie, a loving woman who just wanted to be loved in return. Then when morning came, she was willing to give up that love and let it go without him even remembering because he felt better and that was just who she was.
I have to disagree with the people who said it was really hard to follow Jim. As long as you kept track in your mind it was not that hard. It added to the complexity of the character and helps you get into his mind.
I really connected with this book and enjoyed the fact that it was set in Connecticut so they lived in the same environment that I live in now.
~Lindsey Davidson
Overall, I personally didn't like this play. I do have to give credit to Eugene O'Neil for phenomenal characterization though. I appreciated Josie's strong personality which kept her father in line and attracted some admiration from Jim. Her father was humorous but slightly irritating when he tried every way to avoid saying that he was sure Jim was selling the farm to Harder. Jim was confusing to me. I did not like his apparent alcoholism and the only thing that suggested his true affections for Josie was when he refused to get in bed with her. At the end of the play, I have to agree with Matt and Dan. I couldn't figure out what the play's plot was. All that really happened during the play was the conversation between Jim, Josie, and Hogan that described their characters to the reader and uncovered some truths about their lives, like the effect that Jim's mother's death had on him. This struggle to find a plot or purpose of this play left a bad impression on me and I hope someone will be able to enlighten me on some deeper meanings in this play that I might've missed.
ReplyDelete~Andrea S.
Thinking back onto this play some more, I realized how well O'Neil developed these characters. I miss Josie, and her father. As much as I dislike certain things about them, overall they felt very close to home. They felt like real people because I disliked parts of them, they were not perfect, there weren't good people and bad people, just people with pros and cons. In real life people have tons of flaws, often times authors forget this and make a character with one main underlying flaw. These characters were filled with them, just as they would be in real life.
ReplyDelete