The thing that is going to bring up are grades!

so we got Ishmael, Desdemona, Denver, and who ever the other person is. Also, we have the valet bringing around someone who has the samae relationships than that during no exit. So ya feel free to comment.

"...there are below this wall three smaller circles, each in its degree like those you are about to leave, and all are crammed with god's accurst "

The Canto begins with the poets closing in on the inner edge of the sixth circle when they find themselves overpowered by a terrible stench, which makes them fall back. While cowering from the grotesque smell, Virgil explains the three smaller circles below the wall. The three circles contain those who are fraudulent, malicious, or violent. God considers fraud to be the greatest of these three and is placed below all the other, has worse punishments, because humans are the only one capable of it. The next up is Malice which god hates. The first below them is violence. God is separated into three descending rounds of crueler torments, where the three rounds are categorized as God, self, and neighbor.

What was extremely confusing to me in this Canto is that God considers those who are fraudulent are punished greater than those who are violent. You can be a murderer and in hell have a torment less than that of someone who committed fraud. I do not understand how this is possible other than that Dante's view on god is that he punishes considering human's ability ability towards reason and how we can manipulate others. All animals can murder other animals, but humans are the only animals that can be fraudulent towards each other.

Sartre

Collections:
No Exit and Three Other Plays (1955)
Anthologies:
Great Modern European Short Stories (1967)
Book of Cats, the (1976)
Oxford Book of French Short Stories, the (2002)
Novels:
Nausea (1938)
Reprieve, the (1945)
Age of Reason, the (1945)
Ghost of Stalin, the (1956)
Plays:
Flies, the (1943)
No Exit (1944)
Respectful Prostitute, the (1946)
Dirty Hands (1948)
Short Stories:
Wall, the (1939)

Series:
Roads to Freedom, the
Oxford Books of Prose

Listed above are some of Sartre's literature. As it is shown, Sartre did not stick with one type of writing and instead worked with different writing styles such as: a series, short stories, plays, novels, and anthologies.

Sartre was born on June 21, 1905 in Paris, and he died April 15, 1978 after a visit to Israel. His father died when he was only a fifteen month old baby sick with the disease enteritis. Living at his Grandparents house with his mother; he was raised a chatholic. He also learned to read at a young age and spent a large amount of his time in the Grandfather's library. Schooling did not begin so well for him, and he went from private tutoring to public schooling, and finally ended up at private schooling.

The question is why would a famous philosopher such as Sartre turn towards theatre for writing. The answer is simple. Sartre was captured by the Nazis as a French prisoner of war. The conenction between his being captured and playwriting is that he was allowed to write and produce a play for the soldiers in the camp he was being held in. The play was for the holiday christmas. After using the play to send subtle anti-nazi messages, which did not take any affect on the viewers; he realized the how he can use the stage to install hope into the minds of the viewers, as well as sending a political message.

sources:

http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/sart.htm

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1964/sartre-bio.html

http://atheism.about.com/od/existentialistphilosophers/a/sartre.htm

I do not know how, but somehow my reaction up to 17 and the entire reaction got switched. So the reaction up to 17 is the top one and the entire reaction is under it.

Reaction Pg. 17

This story surprised me. At first, I had thought that the beginning scene would be some sort of a joke with the valet pulling a prank on Garcin. After accepting the validity of the story I immediately began to pay attention to the details that were present. The idea of no mirror, Second Empire style room, the bronze heavy object, and the couches. Since there was no upfront, apparent torture I thought that the details brought up in the beginning would serve as torture for the characters.
I found the beginning of this book to be fairly funny. The crude humor of the Valet forced me to often laugh out loud, and endure awkward stares from my father. Simple questions that Garcin makes seemingly bring hilarious answer from the Valet. "Where are the instruments of torture..the what?...the racks and red-hot pincers and all the other paraphernalia...ah, you must have your little joke, sir!...But, damn it all, they might have left me my toothbrush...That's Good!...excuse me smiling" (Sartre, 4). I can honestly say that I was laughing loudly at Garcin's innocence and the Valet's personality. There is no deeper meaning to this quote other than that i found it very funny.
The next thing that caught my attention occurred later in the play. This was when the other characters were introduced into the play. Listening to how they acted and how they acted to each other causes a lot of interesting questions. Why were they roomed together? How they will learn to live with each other? As well as, how did Garcin get so lucky to be roomed with two girls; where does someone get those odds when they're alone for all eternity?

That is all for now other than that the silence will not last.
1ST BLOCK RULES
YAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

Sincerely,
Matt Murray

NO EXIT EVERYTHING

I accept the creativity used to create a hell that I believe no one had ever thought of before, but I do not like this version of hell. I just want to put it out there before i began that hell will not be as simple as just a hotel, where people bicker amongst themselves.

Anyway, Sartre's play rolls that which controls hell to be an all powerful being, who can ultimately predict exactly what people will do when put into a room together. This theory is mentioned throughout the play; the idea that the characters were put into this exact room with everything in it for the exact reason to torture each other. "I mean that each of us will act as torturer of the two others" (Sartre 17). Although this was obviously the truth, I did not wish to believe it to be so. I do not want hell to be a psychological game, and I do not see how it would always work. Unfortunately, the knife put my view on the main hook in the story to be this theory. "[he goes to the mantelpiece and picks up a paper-knife] What's this? Can't you see? An ordinary paper-knife...right! in that case, i'll stop her watching. [she picks up the paper-knife from the table, rushes at INEZ and stabs her several times]" (Sartre 7. 45). Although I do not like the idea of "NO EXIT" being a reality, I thought this connection was really intriguing. Everything that was in that room meant something. The beginning of the play I was confused about the paper knife, and in the last couple pages it happened; she stabbed Inez with the knife. That was cool.

Hell. I can envision hell as being two things eithre a dark, desolate tundra-ish area where you walk for eternity to pay for your bad deeds, or a hot firery volcanic area with people being tortured and such.