Exploring the Reading Aloud experience

Speak Up!

Exploring What Children Look For In the Reading Aloud Experience and Do I Have That?

By Molly Miller

May 11 2008

I work in a preschool. “Precious is the Child” preschool to be exact. I help look after and teach 11 brilliant children. They love to pretend and to play and learn. They also love books. They flip through book after book asking questions and looking for any piece of information they already know. Frequently they will ask for me to read them a book. When that happens, the rest of the children will drop their toys and flock around me, choosing more books and lining them up in the order they want.

One of their favorite books is “The Three Billy Goats Gruff.” When I read it to them they all fall silent- perhaps the first time all day! I think they like it because I can do a variety of voices: deep and growling for the troll, loud and deep for the biggest Billy Goat, regular for the medium sized Billy Goat, and really high for the smallest Billy Goat. Each goat, as it crosses the bridge, makes a noise that the children live for hearing: “Trip Trap, Trip Trap” as the medium and small Billy Goat cross and “TRIP TRAP, TRIP TRAP” for the biggest Billy Goat.

When this part comes up, many of the kids say it along with me. Others just sit there with their eyes and mouth wide open. They love every minute of it and I don’t know if it matters who reads it to them, as long as the voices and trip-trapping remains constant.

I think that is true with a lot of books read to children. The children like to hear a story read to them and they will only accept the book if it’s read exactly the same as the first time they heard it. Countless times I’ve read books to the children at my preschool and they’ve stopped me saying “Isn’t it this way?” or “You’re not reading it right!” or even “What about this tangent? Mrs. Most always talked about…”

I remember that about the books I was read as a kid. My mom would read us all sorts of books from “The Lord of the Rings” to “Mr. Popper’s Penguins.” I remember she read “The Hobbit” to us and ever since I haven’t been able to listen to a recording of someone else reading it. My mom’s voices echo in my head when I read it to myself and the pronunciation of the names is something I won’t ever forget.

Of course, a child does not always like a book the first time it’s read to him. Just recently I read “Froggy’s First Kiss” to a four year old boy, because he asked me to. I didn’t really think he’d like it, but because he insisted, I read it to him. I made sure to use voices for Froggy and his mother and father and classmates. The boy just stood there, hands clasped behind his back, smiling.

He was up against the shelf behind me. When the story was done, I turned to him and asked if he liked the story. He shook his head fiercely and turned red. I smiled and asked if he wanted to read a different one. He grabbed a different “Froggy” book and I tried to replicate the same voices and attitudes. This time he said he had liked it.

I thought this interesting, because I didn’t do a very good job with the consistency of the voices in the second “Froggy” book. I stumbled a lot and broke out in a fit of yawns right at the climax of the story! Yet he liked that book much better than the first one and seemed a lot more comfortable. He actually stood by my side and watched the pictures intently.

The look of complete interest and wonder that his face possessed in that second reading is the reason I love reading to children. I’ve been reading to children for a long time now. I’ve done babysitting and teaching and every time I read to children, I love it. Over this course I’ve developed a new appreciation for where I’ve learned all this.

Although I learned a lot from this course, the skills used in reading aloud to children was not created by reading texts or websites. I learned these skills from my mother, who read to us every day and taught us to love literature, and from experience with children.

Because I started working with children at a young age, I’ve had plenty of time to turn my reading skills into an expertise! Whenever I would baby-sit, and put the children to bed, I would read them a bedtime story of their choice. When I taught Sunday school, I read them Bible stories. When I visit my relatives, and my young cousin, I always read a few stories to him.

I’ve found a few tricks that help almost any child focus on the story and enjoy it more. If you use voices, ask the children questions, and move the book around so all the children can see the pictures, they become more involved in the reading process.

The things I learned from this class are really important. I gained some new insight as to how to present poetry to a group of young children (I honestly never thought about it before), I learned how much teaching is involved in learning, I was introduced to some books that I had never heard of before but now thoroughly enjoy, and I had a lot of fun just discussing my experiences. I love children, and I loved this class.

Exploring the Disguises and Deceit in Shakespeare's Twelfth Night

Lying for Truth’s Sake;

Examining the Disguises and Deceit of Feste, the Clown, in “Twelfth Night”

By Molly Miller

“For since the little wit that fools have was silenced, the little foolery that wise men have makes a great show.”

Shakespeare is well known for his great characters. Everyone knows the tragic lovers Romeo and Juliet, the noble and just prince Hamlet, the spunky and mischievous fairy Puck, and his other great characters. All of these characters are well known and well loved so much that they are even used by modern authors as a basis for characters, plots, and dialogue. Out of all of his great characters, however, none are quite as memorable as Shakespeare’s Fools.

Shakespeare’s Fools are highly beloved by audiences worldwide because they are filled with wit and humor. No character has as much to say in as little time as the Fools of Shakespeare’s plays. They are also, as portrayed by Feste the Clown in Twelfth Night, filled with disguise and deceit that audiences feed upon and enjoy.

The disguise that Feste, the clown, wears is cleverly put on and consists of three articles: ignorance to disguise his knowledge, entertainment to disguise his messages, and innocence to disguise his cleverness.

The ignorance Feste feigns is needed to disguise his knowledge. Knowledge such as Feste possesses could get any common person into trouble with the nobility. The knowledge he has is the knowledge of truth. The nobility were not truthful people. Instead, they often covered up the truth for their own, personal gain. Because the nobility frowned upon truth, Feste hid his knowledge of the truth in order to stay in favor with them. That was how he survived at the house of nobility.

He did not take this aspect of his disguise off willingly. It was too risky to do so. However, in certain cases the disguise cannot stand up to the scrutiny of prying eyes. Such an example happens in Act 3 scene 1, when Feste talks with Viola. He does not say very much but Viola, being used to disguises herself, sees through the clown’s disguise and says “This fellow is wise enough to play the fool,

And to do that well craves a kind of wit…

This is a practice

As full of labor as a wise man’s art;

For folly that he wisely shows, is fit;

But wise men, folly-fall’n, quite taint their wit.”

Another part of his disguise focuses on entertainment to conceal the messages of his tongue. Feste needed an excuse to remain in the home of noblemen and what better way than to amuse and entertain his host? Feste did many things to amuse; he told jokes, sang, etc… and so gained the affection of many of the household.

However, little did they know that Feste was not just joking or being foolish. The clown also put serious messages into his entertainment. These messages were so subtle that the noblemen often did not notice they were there. As long as the messages were subliminal, they were taken in through laughs and could start a spark of an idea of truth into the household’s noble, yet oblivious, heads.

In one such instance, in scene 5 of act 1, Feste talked with Olivia. Olivia did not much care for Feste, but he convinced her to listen to what he had to say by playing a silly game with her. In that game, he tried to prove Olivia the fool (which is impossible; no one can prove to a woman that she is a greater fool than he!) and, in doing so, slipped in a few messages trying to convince her not to mourn the death of her brother anymore. This was a serious message and would not have been accepted without Feste’s clever game.

The final aspect of Feste’s disguise is the innocence that he used to make his cleverness invisible. Many times Feste pretends to be oblivious of the true meaning behind words. This way people would think him simple or stupid and would be less careful about the things they told him, thinking he would not understand them anyway.

In Act 4 scene 5 of Twelfth Night, Feste not only learns Malvolio’s plans, but convinces him to do what Feste wants as well. The clown’s disguise serves as just what he needs to manipulate people for their own good.

Why would he do so? What purpose has Feste to disguise himself as a fool? Because he believes in truth and the only way to get the truth out- veiled as it might be- is to play the part of the fool and deceive the royalty. If he were to go up to the royalty, without his disguise, and tell them all he knew, he would face a very sever punishment if not death. So, to remain alive and able to speak out the truth, Feste must twist the truth of who he is in the eyes of those who hate truth.

Exploring Feelings of Pregnancy through Plath's Metaphors

Treasured Parasite;

Examining Feelings of Pregnancy through “Metaphors”

By Molly Miller

May 5 2008

There is a new life inside a woman. She is carrying a precious seed and should feel honored that the little guest is inside her. Not all can do that. She is lucky that a child lives within her. Yet there is another tone in many women’s voice when they talk about pregnancy. They do not feel blessed, they feel abused. In Sylvia Plath’s poem “Metaphors” she talks about all the different feelings that come with pregnancy.

The first feeling Plath admits is a feeling of confusion. She calls herself a “riddle” showing that who she really is can’t be seen very easily. Maybe she can’t even solve her own riddle. The “nine syllables” she talks about are the nine months that she is pregnant. She is saying that as long as there is a baby inside her, there is a riddle surrounding her as well.

She feels fat. She compares herself to an elephant, which everyone knows is rather large and robust. An elephant also has the second longest pregnancy. It lasts 22 months and Plath may be suggesting that she feels like the pregnancy is very, very long. It is also very hard to get an elephant pregnant. She talks of her baby as the elephant’s ivory. The ivory of an elephant is the treasure of an elephant. Because of their ivory, they are hunted. Everyone wants elephant ivory. Does everyone want Plath’s baby? Are people only interested in Plath because she carries her baby? Plath also calls herself a “ponderous house” and a “Melon strolling on two tendrils.”

When I first heard the word “ponderous” I related it to the word “ponder” which means to meditate or consider thoroughly. Thus I originally thought Plath was saying that she thought constantly about her pregnancy. When I looked up the word, however, I found it meant heavy, or bearing much weight. Because of this definition, I see that Plath thinks herself fat. I think both definitions can be possible interpretations of the word “ponderous.” When Plath uses “house” it is quite obvious that she is talking about the fact that her stomach is now a home for a child.

The “melon” Plath talks about is her body; round and plump. It grows bigger and bigger until it becomes ripe. Her “two tendrils” are her legs. They support her, but just barely and they are tiny and almost shriveled because of her weight.

She also says that she’s “eaten a bag of green apples.” And that she is like a loaf of bread. What is with all the food metaphors? Could Plath be craving some fruits and bread? Many people do crave sugar during their pregnancies, so it is possible Plath just wanted some sugary fruits.

She doesn’t just use food metaphors though. Plath also compares herself to a purse with a new, shiny coin inside. This shows that not only does she recognize that she is the proper place for her child to be kept, but that she considered her child a treasure. There is a reason that the child is in her and she knows that one day it will be a beautiful new life that is worth so much!

Because of the great worth of the child, Plath also describes the feeling that she is lessened in worth. She says “I’m a means, a stage…” This mother-to-be is wondering if the baby is worth more than she is. I think a lot of pregnant women think that their babies are worth more than they are. That is because everyone always is excited about the baby. They buy things for the baby, they plan for the baby, they throw a shower for the baby, they want to feel the baby, they want to know when the baby will come, if it’s a boy or a girl, and what its name will be. They only ask about the mother as far as to make sure the baby is well. The mother, to them, is only the means to a baby. Is it any wonder that the mother starts thinking this way?

The last line “Boarded the train there’s no getting off” seems to almost express regret at getting pregnant. It almost is said with a sigh. She accepts that it has happened and recognizes that her baby is a treasure, but does she wish she could stop it? Does she wish to get off the train? She is torn between hating the process and loving the child who will be waiting for her at the end of the pregnancy.

Exploring Feminism in Ibsen's A Doll's House and Glaspell's Trifles

Marital Masquerades:

Looking beyond Feminism in A Doll’s House and Trifles

by Molly Miller

April 3 2009

To the modern reader, A Doll’s House and Trifles are filled with feminist ideas, but to their authors and the readers of the early 1900s, both plays took a look at a more universal social problem. Henrik Ibsen wrote A Doll’s House in 1879, concentrating on the tendency for those in social relationships to cover up problems. Ibsen wrote about a family trapped within their own marital masquerade. Likewise, in 1916, Susan Glaspell wrote Trifles, not to claim women’s superiority over men, but to identify the common pretense of a perfect marriage that was all too common during that time. Both Trifles and A Doll’s House examine the fragile necessity of reputation and appearances within nineteenth century marriages.

Ibsen’s world—Norway, late 1800s—was one untouched by the Feminist movement, which started in the United States in 1848 (Morash 107) and didn’t reach Norway until 1884 (Evans 82). The reaction to the Feminist movement in Norway was not as outrageous as in America because women of Norway had a considerable amount of freedom already. Women were already strong figures within Norwegian myths and legends and, by the 1870s they already had many economic rights including “admittance to the teaching position (1869), legal majority for unmarried women (1863), equal inheritance rights (1854), and occupational freedom (1866)” (Evans 82). This made Feminism somewhat of a moot point and, although marriage was more socially acceptable than living alone, there were other problems with the ideal of marriage larger than the suppression of women for Ibsen to write about.

Unlike Norway, the United States of America reacted with unbelievable force to the feminist movement. Yet, until about 1914, feminism flew under the public radar, concerning itself with individual relationships and families (Delap 34). It wasn’t just the oppression that was kept out of the public eye, however, Americans of the early 1900s liked to keep their all of their relationship problems private. Many married couples would do anything to keep their lives free from scandal, including lying to their neighbors and friends to keep up appearances. This was done to protect the married couple from being ostracized if ever their secrets turned into scandal. It was this aspect of marriage that inspired Glaspell to write Trifles, leaving feminism to be explored in further detail by those more interested in the subject.

A Doll’s House is filled with little clues revealing the true nature of the marriage between Torvald and Nora Helmer. All of these clues are presented within the seemingly harmless dialogue. Torvald calls Nora his “squirrel” and “little lark” in a seemingly affectionate manner, yet the connotations attached to these animals are somewhat derogatory (1258). Torvald might as well be praising Nora for her ability to scamper or flit about in a carefree, cute way. When people see squirrels or larks, they think of nice walks in the park, where everything in nature is just perfect and quaint. Likewise, Torvald is hinting that their marriage should appear pleasant and pretty as a picture. While Torvald hints at what the marriage should be, Nora offers clues about the troubles lurking within their actual marriage. She outwardly asks Torvald for money at the beginning of the play (1259); almost openly admitting that she is trying to conduct financial affairs without him. However, because they are more concerned with how their marriage looks to the public, and less focused on each other, neither Torvald nor Nora actually understands the implications of their conversations.

The characters in Trifles aren’t much better at understanding each other. Mr. and Mrs. Wright obviously had some strains on their marriage, caused by Mrs. Wright’s longing for a companion and Mr. Wright’s longing for silence. Because they did not communicate with each other, they ended up in a sorry state- with Mr. Wright dead and Mrs. Wright blamed for the murder. Yet Mrs. Wright seemed innocent enough, keeping up the appearance of a good wife. She was in her rocker when she was found right after the murder, “rockin’ back and forth. She had her apron in her hand and was kind of—pleating it” (Glaspell 1049). Even in jail, Mrs. Wright wanted to keep the appearance of a good wife, by requesting that Mrs. Peters bring her an apron, a symbol of her place as a wife (1052). Not only were Mr. and Mrs. Wright concerned with the appearance of their marriage, the friends of Mrs. Wright did all they could to keep a scandal from happening. They hide the truth, which might even save Mrs. Wright, in order to keep the troubles of their marriage a secret. They wanted to uphold the reputation of their friend’s marriage and the ideals of marriage in general.

Despite modern interpretations, Ibsen’s A Doll’s House and Glaspell’s Trifles are not feminist works; instead they discuss the social importance of keeping marriage idealized. The plays do not focus exclusively on women and their oppression within marriage, but how shallow and trite a marriage is when the only thing holding it together is its reputation. Ibsen shows the desperation of keeping the image perfect through Torvald, who says “The thing has to be hushed up at any cost. And as for you and me, it’s got to seem like everything between us is just as it was—to the outside world, that is… From now on happiness doesn’t matter; all that matters is saving the bits and pieces, the appearance” (1300). In an instant the picture perfect appearance can be shattered, leaving the lie the couple lived exposed. This was the main reason Ibsen and Glaspell wrote their plays: to show how trivial and fleeting a reputation can be, urging readers to examine their marriages before it is too late.

Works Cited

Delap, Lucy. The Feminist avant-garde. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Evans, Richard J. The Feminists. Taylor & Francis, 1977.

Glaspell, Susan. Trifles. The Compact Bedford Introduction to Literature. Boston:

Bedford/ St. Martin’s, 2009.

Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s House. The Compact Bedford Introduction to Literature. Boston:

Bedford/ St. Martin’s, 2009.

Morash, Merry. “The Feminist Movement.” Understanding Gender, Crime, and Justice.

SAGE, 2005.

Play Review: The Lion King

We All Can’t Wait!

An Analysis of “The Lion King”

By Molly Miller

May 4 2008

You are sitting on a soft, velvet seat as crimson curtains open on a very impressive stage. There are a handful of musicians on the side of the stage, playing percussion instruments and on the stage itself is a large, revolving rock. The only thing missing from the stage are actors. You look around, wondering if the play is actually beginning. Just then- a voice rings throughout the theatre "Nants ingonyama bagithi baba!" A shiver runs through you as a figure appears onstage, followed quickly by a light on a figure upon a balcony. This figure has giant horns upon his head and he chants a little more African. By this time your heart is pounding as a giant elephant comes through the audience, followed by a baby elephant and actors dressed as African creatures of every kind! They all walk onto the stage and show off with dances, finally gathering underneath the rock to watch a lion and a lioness, accompanied by a baboon- the first figure on stage- present their newly arrived cub.

For many children (and a few adults too) going to see “The Lion King” on Broadway is something to be dreamt of and begged for. I was one of those children. Well, one of those adults, actually, because I begged my parents for the tickets until at last, for my 18^th birthday, my mom said we could go. I waited for the trip with much anticipation and excitement. On the way up to the cities I played my soundtrack and, much to the annoyance of my mom and brother, sang along.

When we arrived at the theatre, everything happened like in a dream and at the first few notes my heart and mind started racing. “I can’t believe I’m here. This is really happening! I’m at The Lion King!” I said to myself over and over again. Feeling proud that my family was able to spend a little extra cash to come see this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, I was determined that the show would blow me away!

In all honesty, I was blown away for most of it. The big musical numbers were very good. I almost cried in “Circle of Life”, “I just can’t wait to be king” and “Hakuna Matata” were the most fun I’ve had in a long while, “Can you feel the love tonight” was inspiring, and “be prepared” was a phenomenal picture in red and black smoke! They were done with incredible singing and set and the dancing was spectacular! I think my favorite scene was the stampede sequence. The set was a bunch of raised platforms with a big wheel in the back on which was attached many small puppets of wildebeests. The wheel turned and made it look like the puppets were running. Then, from behind the first raised platform came a number of actors/wildebeests who ran in place. Then on the second platform came in more actors/wildebeests who ran in place next to Simba (who also ran in place) and was quickly surrounded by even more actors/wildebeests. They acted out the whole scene and when Mufassa fell they used a strobe light to add effect.

Despite these musical masterpieces, there were a numerous amount of songs that were met with little excitement at all. “Madness of King Scar” was especially cut short of its potential. Besides cutting at least half of the actual song, the acting was uninterested and rushed. This happened during “One by One” as well, and “Shadowland.” The actors just all of a sudden seemed like they didn’t want to be in the play anymore and they just wanted it over. So they rushed important lines and skipped important ideas. They got the humor really well, and forgot to take joy in the dramatic moments, which left them feeling empty and stupid.

This made me very disappointed. Those songs that were affected were some of my favorites and it didn’t seem fair that they would be diminished like that. Are actors not supposed to swallow that feeling of weariness and act like it is the first time they’ve done the play every time they perform it? It seems to me that getting involved and actually pretending that you are in the story is the only way to make a show like “The Lion King” work. Because everything about “The Lion King” is reliant on the suspension of reality, the actors must be in character every second they are onstage. If the cast had just relaxed and enjoyed being in “The Lion King” as much as I enjoyed watching it, it could have been the best show I’d ever seen!

I do have to give credit to one actress who pulled off her role with delightful spunk. That was Rafiki. I loved Rafiki. She went around, interacting with the audience and talking in African- making jokes that left her, and the audience, laughing profusely. Despite her heavy costume and shortened legs, she hopped around like nobody’s business! She, out of all the cast, seemed the only one who truly enjoyed performing the wonderful story.

The chorus did a good job as well. I could not see them liking the performance all the time- but then, they weren’t onstage the entire time either. In “Circle of Life” the cheetah was my favorite. She strode onto the set with such attitude that I had to smile. Little moments like that made me like the performance, despite the fact that the cast seemed to be having no fun at all.

If I had the opportunity to go again, I would. I can’t tell if that stems from actually liking the play enough, disliking it so much that I want to make sure my point was valid, or just because I like the music so much that the acting only comes second to me. Whatever the reason, I think if I did go again I would want it to be on Broadway instead of the touring group. That way I could compare the acting and, hopefully, be completely blown away! Oh I just can’t wait for another opportunity to see it!

Play Review: The Imaginary Invalid

Psychedelic Enemas

By Molly Miller

December 11 2007

A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to see Molière’s “The Imaginary Invalid” performed by the theatre department at Saint Benedict College in St. Cloud, MN. I chose this performance (a tough decision out of many productions) because I feel so strongly about this production.

I went to the college, not knowing what to expect and came out not really knowing what I felt. The play was entertaining and I laughed a lot, however, it failed to uphold the Molièrean ideals. Theatre has an obligation not only to its audience, but to those who create it. This production of “The Imaginary Invalid” fell short of this obligation because it made the play seem trite and meaningless.

When I first arrived at the college, I was allowed to see the stage on which the play would take place. The set, I’ll admit, was gorgeous! It consisted of six or seven pieces of almost see-through fabric draped at angles from the lights down to the stage floor. The floor itself was painted with multi-colored circles. The set was whimsical and graceful, almost ethereal, the perfect place for Molière’s sardonic humour.

As the house lights dimmed, the props were rolled on stage by the actors. A big, pastel, purple and green closet was the first to be set onstage. In all its non-symmetrical glory, it leaned over as if it was a melted candle right out of Dr. Seuss’ birthday cake. Following it, came a large bed with frilly, fluffy pillows and a top-heavy side table filled with large, bubble bottles. Soon couches and chairs joined the mismatched party of furniture, adding their puke-inspired colors to the aura of fantastical zaniness.

The costumes and wigs upheld this bedlam of layer-cake putrescence. Characters flounced about in frothy garments of every hue ever invented by Walt Disney’s cartoon department. To top off the swirls of gooey fluff, each actor was coiffed in a dollop of frosting “hair.” These wigs were made out of everything, but hair itself… sponges, faux fur, wire, terrycloth, yarn, and flowers.

The insidious accents mimicked the garish costumes and set. The actors smothered the dialogue in everything from French accents to speech impediments. These voices strangled and fought the lines until the meaning was distorted. There was also a conscious decision in the production to add ‘bodily-function’ humor which literally covered up what Molière had to say. The sound effects crew was constantly adding bathroom noises over the lines of the characters. They especially liked to cover up Toinette’s lines, which I find most unnerving because Toinette is the voice of reason. I thought her voice would hold more value than just lines to overlook with crude and obnoxious noises.

Everything was well made, and I’m usually impressed by creative design, but they pushed it too far. It is true that Molière intended his plays to be funny, but not a big carnival! It is very hard to get anything out of a play when one can’t even understand the lines, or hear them over the farting. In some ways, it seemed more like the production was put on to make fun of the play, not to promote what Molière wanted to say. The set, instead of reinforcing Molière’s ridicule, made him seem ridiculous with carts of maniacal medical devices and a bazooka-sized enema gun. The cartoonish costumes distracted the audience from the substance that lives within his characters. Instead, they became caricatures.

All these factors made me realize that this was no longer a world in which we, the audience, could identify. There was nothing to connect us with Molière’s world. Theatre is supposed to draw in an audience with suspended belief in order to allow them to be affected by the author’s experience. The audience should leave a little bit richer in knowledge and understanding about themselves. Instead of doing this, this production of “The Imaginary Invalid” presented Molière’s play as nothing more than a fluffy farce.

“A director’s first priority is to the playwright and the play.” This production would have killed Molière.