Please respond to the following prompts in collaboration with your fellow classmates. I'm looking for you to discuss the readings by referring to previous posts rather than just listing your interpretations. Also make sure to identify who you are and your class period. I need this so that I can give you credit for your posting. Thanks. Mr. Domingo
Friday, January 28, 2011
"For Whom the Southern Belle Tolls"
Is Christopher Durang's one-act play an effective parody of Tennessee Willams's play? Why or why not?Also use this space for any other questions about The Glass Menagerie
I do believe that Christopher Durang's play is a somewhat effective parody of the Glass Menagerie because it does reflect many of the frustrations of those who have read the Glass Menagerie. He also makes many of the actions of the characters in the Glass Menagerie seem ridiculous through the actions of the characters in the play, For Whom the Southern Belle Tolls. The reader can feel symphathy for Amanda Wingvalley because even she realizes how absurd her life is with her two strange children, something Amanda Wingfield never completely understood. Lawrence's antics that imitate Laura's in the Glass menagerie allow the reader to realize how simplistic and outrageous they both are. Tom Wingvalley is similar to Tom Wingfield in the sense that he wants to escape the madness of his sibling and mother, but his overexaggeratedly strange obssessions (watching and reading about porn)cause him to also appear to be lacking in sensibility. Ginny seems to be the most over dramaticized character in the play and she amplifies Jim's overconfidence and ignorance. Durang's play is a little uneffective because he focuses more on the overdramatization of Ginny (Jim) than on Lawrence (Laura). In his notes, Durang dicusses how he wrote For Whom the Southern Belle Tolls in reponse to his frustration towards Laura, but it seems that he focuses more on Jim's faults in the play. At some points in the play, Ginny is even more absurd than Lawrence. Amanda Wingvalley,who appears to despise Ginny, even feels sorry for their possible children, compared to Amanda Wingfield who absolutely adores Jim. However, Durang does effectively contrast Lawrence, a character who appears to change but reverts back to his simple ways, with Laura, a dynamic charcter.
My question to anyone out there is who do you think Durang satirizes more, Laura (Lawrence) or Jim (Ginny). I would also like to hear any other thoughts on this play.
I agree with Monique that Ginny is the most over dramatized character in the parody, taking into account her exaggerated deafness that comes off as irritable. I found her character to be a strange transition from The Glass Menagerie considering Jim, the character of which she is based off of, was formerly the most realistic character in the play.
To answer Monique's question, I think Laura (Lawrence) is the character Durang satirizes the most. In the parody, Lawrence's limp and glass collection are understood from reading The Glass Menagerie, but why all of sudden the asthma and eczema? It all just emphasizes the author's view of Laura as ridiculous.
My question is not pertaining to Laura, but to Mr. Wingfield and why he is not represented at all the the parody.
To answer Andrea's question on why Mr. Wingfield was not represented in the parpody, I believe it merely has to do with the fact that there was not much to work with when it came to the father. The author of the parody was trying to express some of the things he found annoying with the situations and traits of the characters in the play. Durang did not necessarily mean to leave out the father, just that he did not relate to the point the author was trying to put across to the readers. Or perhaps he was not mentioned for the sole purpose of making Tom’s leaving seem more selfish than an act of "father like son".
As for the effectiveness of the parody, I found it to be quite well done to emphasis his opinion. Take the swizzle sticks for instance. In the actual The Glass Menagerie, the glass animals were made out to be very important and beautiful while in the parody the swizzle sticks were used to mirror Lawrence’s obsessive need to collect and name the pieces of glass. This is an effective quality of the parody, for it brings readers to the attention of Laura’s collection and how it reflects on her to have spent such a great deal of attention to them. It makes you realize that though the character of Lawrence was much more exaggerated than Laura, it makes her glass animals seem more ridiculous and plays down the importance. Durang also used this method throughout his play with most of the characters, using them to exaggerate and ultimately make fun of the characters in The Glass Menagerie, as Monique said earlier. This was effective in making fun of how Laura was crippled in the play, being that Lawrence actually limped everywhere, and displaying Tom’s cockiness and over-confident attitude through the character of Ginny.
I would have to agree with everyone above me. Durang effectively satirizes the entire cast of The Glass Menagerie. Lawrence is ridiculed for his fake limp, asthma and over-obssession with the glass collection. Amanda is characterized as an ambivalent mother who loves her children as seen through her trying to help Lawrence, but she is also very caustic to both Lawrence and Tom, as seen through her constant "jokes" and harsh comments towards her children. Tom is ridiculed through his excessive rudeness towards his brother and mother, and his love to take drugs and watch excessive pornography. Ginny is satirized though her loud-speaking, although I do not really understand how well that deafness ties into the original Glass Menagerie. But overall, it seems as if everyone is satirized in this play.
However, I think what most makes this an effective parody is that it is told from a point of view of a grown student who is old enough to realise the frustration of the characters in the Glass Menagerie, yet not mature enough to truly understand the general focus of the play: the love for one's family members. IN this parody, Durang fails to really ridicule the love that Tom has for Lawrence, like the one Tom had for Laura in the Menagerie. INstead, Durang focuses on showing the ridiculous thoughts and actions of the characters and Williams himself (as seen in Tom's final speech), than in the main theme of the Menagerie itself.
What I also believe makes this an effective play is that it is more catered to a modern audience. For example when Lawrence fusses over the "pimple," Durang is ridiculing regular society today and young teenagers obssessive focus on their appearances. I mean, typical stereotypes show kids worrying about a huge pimple on their nose or something embarassing overall. So we can identify with Lawrence over the pimple issue. Also, Amanda mentions that LAwrence should talk about "Red China." Red China was only a big deal after World War 2, past the 1940s, or even after the cultural revolution in the 60s and 70s. So, Durang effectively talks about modern issues for modern audiences. Of yeah, not to mention the Q-tip, which is more of a modern day phenomenom (if i'm correct).
But what makes this parody even more effective is that it follows the basic outline of the Menagerie. Because almost everything that occured in the Durang play was almost replicated from the Williams play, we, having read Williams play, understand almost everything that is going on in the play. Like Durang said in the beginning, "the play is definitely geared to people who know the Williams' play." Since we know the original play very well, we can understand almost all of Durang parodies in his play. Similar to what happens with inside jokes. People who are acquainted with the matter will understand the joke, but those who aren't will not understand. Therefore, this play is very effective.
In my honest opinion I felt that this had a very similar plot to the Glass Menagerie. Same arguments used in the Glass Menagerie but with a feistier, sarcastic tone. The only thing missing was Laura's innocent state of mind.
I felt that Lawrence and Amanda were foils because they seemed to get into a lot of arguments. Lawrence seemed to be similar to Laura but in a male body and argued way more with Amanda. Amanda even called Lawrence a retard a couple of times in the play. Additionally I see Lawrence and Ginny as being in a good state of mind towards each other. And I see Tom as the mediator/ police man in between all the conflicts.
There was some irony in the play such as when Tom said "Here's your poison" to Ginny when she ordered her Gin. Tom used to drink in the Glass Menagerie, and it's ironic to call alcohol poison if you drink it.
First of all, I would like to say that all of my classmates have made very sound and convincing arguments.
Christopher Durang's "For Whom the Southern Belle Tolls" is an effective parody to Tennessee Williams' "The Glass Menagerie." Durang, in his brief play, successfully condenses Williams' characters into miserable people who live pitiful lives. Durang portrays Laura's character as Lawrence, a young man who believes he is crippled, has asthma and eczema. Throughout the play, Durang empathizes Laura's insecure character traits and her supposed 'defects'. Lawrence obsesses over his glass swizzle sticks in a manner much like Laura did over her glass menagerie. Durang takes this trait to a higher level when Lawrence claims that each stick is unique but then goes on to name several sticks the same repetitive names (Blue,Stringbean). Another jab Durang takes towards Laura is Lawrence's sex. Socially, a man is supposed to be tougher and less emotional than a woman. With that said, Durang takes Laura's insecurity and places it on a man to multiply the negative effect that should be felt. Now, Lawrence is not only insecure, but he is an insecure man which is far worse according to society. Durang masterfully mocks Laura through Lawrence.
Durang then turns his parody towards Jim. Williams male character, Jim, appears as a female character, Ginny, in Durang's parody. A major difference is noticeable right off the bat. Ginny is half deaf wheres Jim was the idol character in Williams' play. Durang further mocks Jim by having Ginny yell repeatedly to demonstrate her public speaking class. While Jim was the only 'normal' character in Williams' play, Ginny's handicap turns her into one of the most absurd and even eccentric characters in "For Whom the Southern Belle Tolls." Ginny mistakenly abuses Lawrence's cocktail stirrers in direct contrast to Jim who observed Laura's menagerie with an almost holy reverence. Further contrasts between Jim and Ginny include the act of breaking a piece of the glass collection. Ginny purposefully breaks Thermometer but Jim accidentally breaks unicorn while dancing with Laura. The last major difference is when it turns out that Ginny is a lesbian. This scene could possibly be included in the play to add to the absurdity of the whole play.
Overall Durang does a very efficient job of parodying "The Glass Menagerie.
I agree with Hannah that the swizzle sticks from “For Whom the Southern Bell Tolls” make the parody very effective. This is because in The Glass Menagerie, the glass animals are portrayed as very delicate, gentle objects. They are used to symbolize Laura’s fragile nature and how she is shy but very unique. In the story, Jim says to Laura, “Has anyone ever told you that you were pretty? Well, you are! In a very different way from anyone else. And all the nicer because of the difference too” (p328). This shows that in The Glass Menagerie, Laura’s quiet persona is what makes her unique, in a good way.
Unlike The Glass Menagerie, “For Whom the Southern Bell Tolls,” ridicules Laura (now Laurence)’s shy personality. The author does this by changing the glass menagerie with a collection of swizzle sticks. By changing the glass managerie (which symbolized how Laura was unique) the author makes Laurence seem boring, strange, and abnormal.
I was wondering if anyone understood why in the parody, the author did not include the fire escape as a part of the setting.
In comparison to the original play, "The Glass Menagerie", the parody, "For Whom The Southern Belle Tolls", is more blunt and exaggerated. Though it is definitely an effective parody to those who have prior knowledge of "The Glass Menagerie". In the parody, Durang focuses more on and over dramatizes the characters’ personalities to emphasize their sensitivity and show how absurd they actually were in the original play. This is epitomized with Lawrence’s strange collection of glass cocktail stirrers, which is a parallel to Laura’s glass menagerie. I found this collection to be a bit ironic, because in the original play, Amanda does not approve of excessive drinking and alcoholics. Lawrence is also not just crippled like Laura, but he also has asthma and eczema, which mimics Laura’s condition, accentuating how petty it really is. In the parody, Amanda is harsh on Lawrence and is constantly picking on him, saying that he always makes a fuss out of his complications that he does not even really have. Durang shows this to emphasize Laura’s ridiculously low self confidence. Lawrence’s peculiar habits and mannerisms that emulate Laura’s are more exaggerated, but shows readers just how strange they actually were.
I don’t understand why Durang chose to focus on the over dramatization of Ginny, who was the equivalent to Jim in "The Glass Menagerie". In the parody, Ginny is obnoxious and bothersome, with her impaired hearing that causes her to shout as she speaks, making her come across as a nuisance. Ginny is also homosexual, which I think is situational irony on Lawrence’s part, because it adds to his rejection. Her character is completely different from Jim’s, considering he was the most normal and realistic one in the play.
Tom Wingvalley is similar to Tom Wingfield in the sense that he also wants to escape from his house to get away from his siblings. Although in the parody, Tom is implied to be homosexual like Ginny. I don't know what Durang's intentions were for writing him to be, if he even had any, or if he was trying to get a point across.
I was wondering why Durang chose to make Laura's parallel a boy (Lawrence) and why he made Amanda slightly different from her character in the original play. In the parody, she still cares for her children, but makes crude comments to them, though she is only "kidding".
I agree with all the statements made by the previous posters. Christopher Durang did an excellent job on creating a parody centralized on "The Glass Menagerie." The characters in the play have most if not all the characteristics as their counterparts in the original play.But the author greatly exaggerates the traits that had been major factors in the Glass Menagerie. As many others have said already Ginny,Jim's counterpart, seems to be the most over exaggerated in the play. Jim in the Glass Menagerie played somewhat of a pivotal role in the play, being the first gentleman caller of Laura and slightly bringing Laura out of her shell. I think it is for this reason that Durang chose to exaggerate Ginny the most. In "For Whom The Southern Belle Tolls" Ginny is deaf and obnoxious, being somewhat of the opposite of Jim. This unwanted traits in Ginny seem to poke fun at Tenessee Williams usual structure of play writing,romantic expectations, momentary fulfillment, and ultimate loss. As there may seem to be a moment of fulfillment Durang injects crude jokes from the other characters, diminishing the feeling of any type of fulfillment. Not only that, the ultimate loss seems to be far from any loss. Ginny was the most annoying character in the whole parody making the reader only feel rejoice and jubilation in the end. Not only that but Jim's character is turned into a homosexual, female making it even more ridiculously absurd.
I also agree with Hannah's opinion on why the father is not represented at all in the parody. But I also think that it has to do with the fact that Mr. Wingfield and his actions do not have the same importance to all the characters. Even though Amanda and Laura both acknowledge Mr. Wingfield's abandonment Tom is the one who is most affected by it. Basically I think the reason why Mr. Wingfield was not included in the parody was because the parody is primarily focused on the actions and personalities of Lawrence, Ginny, and a some of Amanda. Therefore Mr. Wingfield is not as important as he was in "The Glass Menagerie"
Responding to Krystin's post, I think Durang decided to make Laura a boy in the parody because it would be funny...but also because it allowed Laura to show more of her emotion, through Lawrence, that she held in in the actual play. For example, when Ginny broke Lawrence's glass stirrer Lawrence spoke out about at Ginny for breaking it unlike in "The Glass Menagerie" where Laura is silent about it. Amanda, in my opinion, hardly changed from the play because her personality was very eccentric. So there was really no need to change her to make her emotions obvious, since they already were. Basically meaning that she was crazy enough without the parody remake.
I also have a question about the ending to "The Glass Menagerie". So we went over the part where Tom tells Laura to blow her candles out and when he says the world is lit by lightning in class but it seems like there is something more. Maybe some symbolism? Any thoughts?
In response to Krystin’s question regarding why Durang made Laura a boy in this parody instead of keeping the gender... I think he did this because it heightens the ridiculous nature and notion of this character, which was essentially his primary motive in creating this spoof. Lawrence’s irrationally obsessive and timid disposition is completely uncharacteristic of a man of this day and age, who, as aforementioned, would generally be working outside of the domestic sphere. The notion of Lawrence remaining at home and engaging in these small hobbies—collecting swizzle sticks in this case—and being completely unconcerned with reality is incredibly bizarre and strays far from the general view on a male’s role in society. We might sympathize more with Laura when it comes to her shy temperament because it’s generally more feasible for a woman to be “domestic”, but Lawrence lacks all the attributes of a man and so he appears pathetic and pitiful to his family and readers.
Also, I'm curious if anyone could elaborate on this. There's a noticeable amount of religious references throughout the play- I was wondering if anyone could identify the significance/role of these particular lines in the play as a whole (for any of the references)?
In response to Josh's concerns about the mention of lightening, I'd like to add on to what I heard in class about the lightening symbolizing Tom's crave for excitement. This is supported by the passage in Scene 5 of The Glass Menagerie we analyzed in class about the delicate vs deceptive rainbows. Even in the parody, the lines following the one about lightening discuss how Tom feels that when he gets "those colored lights [of lightening] going," he feels as if he is on the drug LSD. From what I assume, people do drugs for the rush and excitement, and that is the feeling Tom obtains when he is "lit by lightening," something he feels the whole world yearns.
I would just like to add on to the gender switch of Laura/Lawrence and Jim/Ginny. I think the switch displays Durang's view of woman depending on husband as ridiculous. I mean a "feminine" caller? Who has ever heard of such a thing. Not to mention this feminine caller ends up being deaf and attracted to other females. Personally I think the idea of female dependency on male to survive is being made fun of by Durang. I build this off of Eric's mention of Durang's aim at a modern audience, who at the time was exposed to the founding of the Daughters of Bilitis (DOB), the first lesbian organization in the United States.
However, I too am still unsure of the symbolism behind the candles. If someone could please clarify this and the distortion of light through glass as seen in the menagerie, disco ball, and chandelier, it'd be great.
In Andrea Umali's concern of the symbolism behind the candles, I believe that it represents a light, possibly a bright and happy mood and also sets the attitude. The light through the glass, seen in the menagerie, disco ball, and the chandelier shows that it is fragile and has a delicate and careful purpose. Also when Tom is speaking to the audience in Scene 5 about adventure, he mentions a large glass sphere that hung from the ceiling, this refers to to the light being shaped and distorted. I believe that the glass objects tie in with the glass menagerie collection. Although I am sure of what the fire escape represents for Laura and Tom, I am still unsure about the setting and what it says about the Wingfield family. If someone could please expand the importance of the setting throughout the play and if it represents anything, that would be really helpful. I also had a question about Amanda's character in the parody of Glass Menagerie. What was the reason she was so harsh with her son Lawrence, and why didn't he get upset everytime his mother blamed him for her 'horible' life? Personally, I would have had a hard time understanding and would have felt as if I should have never been born. In this play, I have more sympathy for Lawrence than Laura because Laura has a more supportive mother than Lawrence and at least her mother wants her to have happiness and good fortune, meanwhile Lawrence's mother wishes for a little bit of happiness. I found For Whom the Southern Belle Tolls more amusing and comedic but also a bit too much and overboard with making fun of The Glass Menagerie. Would anybody agree to this thought?
I believe that Christopher Durang’s parody is very ineffective in satirizing many aspects of Tennessee William’s “Glass Menagerie”. As stated by the many of peers above, the parody successfully ridicules all four of the main characters of the original play. I think that Lawrence and Ginny are the most satirized characters in the one-act play. In the parody, the writer satirizes Laura/Lawrence by bombarding the character with many defects and disabilities such as an imaginary limp, a rash, and asthma. As mentioned by peers in my class during the socratic seminar, I also believe that it is ironic that Lawrence has a collection of glass cocktail stirrers because in the original play, an alcoholic was one thing that Amanda despised. In the original play, Jim boasts about taking the public-speaking class. I believe that Durang successfully and hilariously satirizes Jim by characterizing Ginny as nearly deaf.
Did anybody else see the fire escape as a symbol in the original play? I think that the fire escape symbolizes one of the recurring themes of escape. Throughout the play, Tom is trying to escape the “trap” created by his mother, sister, and home. From the fire escape, Tom can escape from the confines of his family and enter a world of unrestricted adventure (symbolized by the dance hall). After coming home from the movies one night, Tom explains that he witnessed a magician escape from a nailed coffin. This example emphasizes the fact that Tom longs for an escape from his dependent family.\
I completely agree with Ms. Umali in that the lightning that struck during the conclusion of the play represented the adventure that Tom yearned for. Lightning, like adventure, is usually characterized as being exciting and unpredictable. Although, I am also unsure about the meaning behind the candles that Laura blows out at the end of the play. What do the blown out candles symbolize?
In response to Angeleen, I think that the most important religious reference occurs in Scene 5. The scene begins “Legend on the screen: ‘Annunciation’”. I was a bit confused and when I researched “Annunciation” I learned that it was the announcement by Gabriel to the Virgin Mary that she would give birth to the savior Jesus Christ. In Scene 5, Tom announces that he has invited Jim O’Connor to dinner. In the play, Jim represented the savior of Laura and the rest of her family. His initials even nearly match those of Jesus Christ.
Andrew Garcia Period 2 The fire escape throughout the play represented the escape, but it also represented the impossibility for them. Laura tripping on the fire escape, and the mother gets mad for having them (Wanting her kids to stay with her). this is further emphasized by the Parody, which foils and contrasts the characters, and how that Amanda tries to kick all of them out. Did you also notice their last name being Wingfield? Ironically contrasting the fact that they cannot escape.
Jim O'Connor does represent a Christ figure also by giving Laura wine before she changes and opens up towards him. (Water to Wine, Spring of the Spirit) Although the Parody obviously poked fun at Jim with Ginny, it also proved a good point. Ginny was (by biblical definition) sinful in every way, thus since Jim was the opposite, he was sinless.
From the beginning I wondered what the "D.A.R." was that Amanda attended so I looked it up; "The Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) is a lineage-based membership organization of women dedicated to promoting historic preservation, education, and patriotism." this also explains Amanda's need for Laura to be self-sufficient. However, what else could this mean? An allusion to woman getting/losing rights, or maybe a plead by the author to stop/support it?
Differing from Andrea and Dino’s perspective, I believe that the “lightning” symbolizes more than Tom’s craving for excitement. In the play it becomes evident that Laura and Tom shared a close relationship. Tom even confesses that after leaving and attempting to leave Laura behind, Tom was “more faithful” than he intended to be. And since the play ends with Tom bidding a final goodbye with the act of Laura blowing out the candles, I have come to interpret this as the light in Tom’s life (symbolized by the candles) being completely blown out. The light of the candles could symbolize Laura as the light in Tom’s life, Tom’s memory of Laura, or even the light reflected off Laura’s glass menagerie. And so with all these interpretations of light concerning Laura being blown out, the only source of light in Tom’s life would technically be “lightning.”
As for the parody of The Glass Menagerie, “For Whom the Southern Belle Tolls,” I found it to be an effective one act play of William Tennessee’s original storyline. And as Eric mentioned, Durang modernizes certain aspects of the plot which is strikingly more effective for an audience of the 21st century. Although Durang bluntly exaggerates certain characteristics of the four main characters, the author is successful in directly exposing some of the veiled sentiments between the characters of the original play. As for Tom’s change of personality and relationship with Laura from intimate to hostile I believe it was to simply remind the audience that The Glass Menagerie is a flawed, one-sided perspective memory of Tom, and therefore, certain characteristics of Tom may have not been fully revealed in the original play.
I completely agree to the opinions of those above. The parody successfully ridicules The Glass Menagerie, but also does more than that though. It points out the true flaws in each character and how ridiculous they really seem. Because of this, this gives me and new perspective on the story and makes me see how much of the characters have many flaws. It is clear that the author is very annoyed by Laura. This evident in his mock version of her, as Lawrence, a hypochondriac who life obsession are cock tail stirrers. Though it may seem that the author is just poking fun at Laura, he's making the point that it is odd that Laura was obsessed with glass menagerie. It also points out how much a wimp Laura is, and how silly she really seems like. After reading this, I begin to wonder why is Laura like this? Why is she so obsessed at focusing on her flaws which limit her from living a real life? The parody also pokes fun at the weird connection Laura and Jim have, or "Lawrence" and "Ginny" have. Lawrence has obsessions over cocktails stirrers, and Ginny likes to drink. It seemed like they would have a good connection, but instead their relationship was nothing more than pointless conversations. This makes me wonder why Jim acted the way he did with Laura. He seemed to have a true connection with Laura, why did he want Betty instead? And he if he loved Betty, why would he get so close to another girl like Laura?
In response to Hannah and Josh’s ideas on the lack of the father’s presence in the parody, looking back at the two plays gave me a different idea. I believed in contrast to their ideas that Mr Wingfield was actually not in the play due to the belief of Durang that without the father involved the mother would be able to move on easier. Because the characters in the play are foils to their actually characters, the Amanda in the parody has already accepted the father’s disappearance and moved on unlike the real Amanda who clings to the past. In the parody she wants to get rid of her two children in order to live her life more freely. I believe that it shows how the father's memory in the house held the mother back to the past in The Glass Menagerie and leading to her living in fantasy. Moving to Dino’s question by looking back at the last page of The Glass Menagerie, we see Tom’s monologue where he addresses the guilt he still has from leaving Laura. By urging her to blow her candles out and then immediately saying goodbye leads me to think that he is hoping that they where able to move forward that way he can live the rest of his life without that guilt following him everywhere. When Laura blows out the candles he finally lets that guilt go.
Look at the way my partner Wesley Virgin's report launches in this SHOCKING AND CONTROVERSIAL VIDEO.
Wesley was in the military-and shortly after leaving-he revealed hidden, "MIND CONTROL" secrets that the CIA and others used to get anything they want.
As it turns out, these are the EXACT same tactics many celebrities (especially those who "come out of nowhere") and elite business people used to become wealthy and famous.
You probably know that you utilize only 10% of your brain.
That's really because the majority of your brain's power is UNTAPPED.
Maybe this thought has even occurred IN YOUR very own head... as it did in my good friend Wesley Virgin's head around seven years back, while riding a non-registered, beat-up garbage bucket of a car without a license and in his pocket.
"I'm very frustrated with going through life check to check! Why can't I turn myself successful?"
You took part in those types of questions, ain't it so?
Your own success story is waiting to be written. All you need is to believe in YOURSELF.
Monique McClain
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
I do believe that Christopher Durang's play is a somewhat effective parody of the Glass Menagerie because it does reflect many of the frustrations of those who have read the Glass Menagerie. He also makes many of the actions of the characters in the Glass Menagerie seem ridiculous through the actions of the characters in the play, For Whom the Southern Belle Tolls. The reader can feel symphathy for Amanda Wingvalley because even she realizes how absurd her life is with her two strange children, something Amanda Wingfield never completely understood. Lawrence's antics that imitate Laura's in the Glass menagerie allow the reader to realize how simplistic and outrageous they both are. Tom Wingvalley is similar to Tom Wingfield in the sense that he wants to escape the madness of his sibling and mother, but his overexaggeratedly strange obssessions (watching and reading about porn)cause him to also appear to be lacking in sensibility. Ginny seems to be the most over dramaticized character in the play and she amplifies Jim's overconfidence and ignorance. Durang's play is a little uneffective because he focuses more on the overdramatization of Ginny (Jim) than on Lawrence (Laura). In his notes, Durang dicusses how he wrote For Whom the Southern Belle Tolls in reponse to his frustration towards Laura, but it seems that he focuses more on Jim's faults in the play. At some points in the play, Ginny is even more absurd than Lawrence. Amanda Wingvalley,who appears to despise Ginny, even feels sorry for their possible children, compared to Amanda Wingfield who absolutely adores Jim. However, Durang does effectively contrast Lawrence, a character who appears to change but reverts back to his simple ways, with Laura, a dynamic charcter.
My question to anyone out there is who do you think Durang satirizes more, Laura (Lawrence) or Jim (Ginny). I would also like to hear any other thoughts on this play.
Andrea Umali
ReplyDeletePeriod Four
I agree with Monique that Ginny is the most over dramatized character in the parody, taking into account her exaggerated deafness that comes off as irritable. I found her character to be a strange transition from The Glass Menagerie considering Jim, the character of which she is based off of, was formerly the most realistic character in the play.
To answer Monique's question, I think Laura (Lawrence) is the character Durang satirizes the most. In the parody, Lawrence's limp and glass collection are understood from reading The Glass Menagerie, but why all of sudden the asthma and eczema? It all just emphasizes the author's view of Laura as ridiculous.
My question is not pertaining to Laura, but to Mr. Wingfield and why he is not represented at all the the parody.
Hannah Pollock
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
To answer Andrea's question on why Mr. Wingfield was not represented in the parpody, I believe it merely has to do with the fact that there was not much to work with when it came to the father. The author of the parody was trying to express some of the things he found annoying with the situations and traits of the characters in the play. Durang did not necessarily mean to leave out the father, just that he did not relate to the point the author was trying to put across to the readers. Or perhaps he was not mentioned for the sole purpose of making Tom’s leaving seem more selfish than an act of "father like son".
As for the effectiveness of the parody, I found it to be quite well done to emphasis his opinion. Take the swizzle sticks for instance. In the actual The Glass Menagerie, the glass animals were made out to be very important and beautiful while in the parody the swizzle sticks were used to mirror Lawrence’s obsessive need to collect and name the pieces of glass. This is an effective quality of the parody, for it brings readers to the attention of Laura’s collection and how it reflects on her to have spent such a great deal of attention to them. It makes you realize that though the character of Lawrence was much more exaggerated than Laura, it makes her glass animals seem more ridiculous and plays down the importance. Durang also used this method throughout his play with most of the characters, using them to exaggerate and ultimately make fun of the characters in The Glass Menagerie, as Monique said earlier. This was effective in making fun of how Laura was crippled in the play, being that Lawrence actually limped everywhere, and displaying Tom’s cockiness and over-confident attitude through the character of Ginny.
Eric Hum
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
I would have to agree with everyone above me. Durang effectively satirizes the entire cast of The Glass Menagerie. Lawrence is ridiculed for his fake limp, asthma and over-obssession with the glass collection. Amanda is characterized as an ambivalent mother who loves her children as seen through her trying to help Lawrence, but she is also very caustic to both Lawrence and Tom, as seen through her constant "jokes" and harsh comments towards her children. Tom is ridiculed through his excessive rudeness towards his brother and mother, and his love to take drugs and watch excessive pornography. Ginny is satirized though her loud-speaking, although I do not really understand how well that deafness ties into the original Glass Menagerie. But overall, it seems as if everyone is satirized in this play.
However, I think what most makes this an effective parody is that it is told from a point of view of a grown student who is old enough to realise the frustration of the characters in the Glass Menagerie, yet not mature enough to truly understand the general focus of the play: the love for one's family members. IN this parody, Durang fails to really ridicule the love that Tom has for Lawrence, like the one Tom had for Laura in the Menagerie. INstead, Durang focuses on showing the ridiculous thoughts and actions of the characters and Williams himself (as seen in Tom's final speech), than in the main theme of the Menagerie itself.
What I also believe makes this an effective play is that it is more catered to a modern audience. For example when Lawrence fusses over the "pimple," Durang is ridiculing regular society today and young teenagers obssessive focus on their appearances. I mean, typical stereotypes show kids worrying about a huge pimple on their nose or something embarassing overall. So we can identify with Lawrence over the pimple issue. Also, Amanda mentions that LAwrence should talk about "Red China." Red China was only a big deal after World War 2, past the 1940s, or even after the cultural revolution in the 60s and 70s. So, Durang effectively talks about modern issues for modern audiences. Of yeah, not to mention the Q-tip, which is more of a modern day phenomenom (if i'm correct).
But what makes this parody even more effective is that it follows the basic outline of the Menagerie. Because almost everything that occured in the Durang play was almost replicated from the Williams play, we, having read Williams play, understand almost everything that is going on in the play. Like Durang said in the beginning, "the play is definitely geared to people who know the Williams' play." Since we know the original play very well, we can understand almost all of Durang parodies in his play. Similar to what happens with inside jokes. People who are acquainted with the matter will understand the joke, but those who aren't will not understand. Therefore, this play is very effective.
Live Huminationed!!!
Jose De Soto IV
ReplyDeletePer. 1
In my honest opinion I felt that this had a very similar plot to the Glass Menagerie. Same arguments used in the Glass Menagerie but with a feistier, sarcastic tone. The only thing missing was Laura's innocent state of mind.
I felt that Lawrence and Amanda were foils because they seemed to get into a lot of arguments. Lawrence seemed to be similar to Laura but in a male body and argued way more with Amanda. Amanda even called Lawrence a retard a couple of times in the play. Additionally I see Lawrence and Ginny as being in a good state of mind towards each other. And I see Tom as the mediator/ police man in between all the conflicts.
There was some irony in the play such as when Tom said "Here's your poison" to Ginny when she ordered her Gin. Tom used to drink in the Glass Menagerie, and it's ironic to call alcohol poison if you drink it.
First of all, I would like to say that all of my classmates have made very sound and convincing arguments.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Durang's "For Whom the Southern Belle Tolls" is an effective parody to Tennessee Williams' "The Glass Menagerie." Durang, in his brief play, successfully condenses Williams' characters into miserable people who live pitiful lives. Durang portrays Laura's character as Lawrence, a young man who believes he is crippled, has asthma and eczema. Throughout the play, Durang empathizes Laura's insecure character traits and her supposed 'defects'. Lawrence obsesses over his glass swizzle sticks in a manner much like Laura did over her glass menagerie. Durang takes this trait to a higher level when Lawrence claims that each stick is unique but then goes on to name several sticks the same repetitive names (Blue,Stringbean). Another jab Durang takes towards Laura is Lawrence's sex. Socially, a man is supposed to be tougher and less emotional than a woman. With that said, Durang takes Laura's insecurity and places it on a man to multiply the negative effect that should be felt. Now, Lawrence is not only insecure, but he is an insecure man which is far worse according to society. Durang masterfully mocks Laura through Lawrence.
Durang then turns his parody towards Jim. Williams male character, Jim, appears as a female character, Ginny, in Durang's parody. A major difference is noticeable right off the bat. Ginny is half deaf wheres Jim was the idol character in Williams' play. Durang further mocks Jim by having Ginny yell repeatedly to demonstrate her public speaking class. While Jim was the only 'normal' character in Williams' play, Ginny's handicap turns her into one of the most absurd and even eccentric characters in "For Whom the Southern Belle Tolls." Ginny mistakenly abuses Lawrence's cocktail stirrers in direct contrast to Jim who observed Laura's menagerie with an almost holy reverence. Further contrasts between Jim and Ginny include the act of breaking a piece of the glass collection. Ginny purposefully breaks Thermometer but Jim accidentally breaks unicorn while dancing with Laura. The last major difference is when it turns out that Ginny is a lesbian. This scene could possibly be included in the play to add to the absurdity of the whole play.
Overall Durang does a very efficient job of parodying "The Glass Menagerie.
Florencia Etcheverry
ReplyDeletePer 2
I agree with Hannah that the swizzle sticks from “For Whom the Southern Bell Tolls” make the parody very effective. This is because in The Glass Menagerie, the glass animals are portrayed as very delicate, gentle objects. They are used to symbolize Laura’s fragile nature and how she is shy but very unique. In the story, Jim says to Laura, “Has anyone ever told you that you were pretty? Well, you are! In a very different way from anyone else. And all the nicer because of the difference too” (p328). This shows that in The Glass Menagerie, Laura’s quiet persona is what makes her unique, in a good way.
Unlike The Glass Menagerie, “For Whom the Southern Bell Tolls,” ridicules Laura (now Laurence)’s shy personality. The author does this by changing the glass menagerie with a collection of swizzle sticks. By changing the glass managerie (which symbolized how Laura was unique) the author makes Laurence seem boring, strange, and abnormal.
I was wondering if anyone understood why in the parody, the author did not include the fire escape as a part of the setting.
Krystin Llanes
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
In comparison to the original play, "The Glass Menagerie", the parody, "For Whom The Southern Belle Tolls", is more blunt and exaggerated. Though it is definitely an effective parody to those who have prior knowledge of "The Glass Menagerie". In the parody, Durang focuses more on and over dramatizes the characters’ personalities to emphasize their sensitivity and show how absurd they actually were in the original play. This is epitomized with Lawrence’s strange collection of glass cocktail stirrers, which is a parallel to Laura’s glass menagerie. I found this collection to be a bit ironic, because in the original play, Amanda does not approve of excessive drinking and alcoholics. Lawrence is also not just crippled like Laura, but he also has asthma and eczema, which mimics Laura’s condition, accentuating how petty it really is. In the parody, Amanda is harsh on Lawrence and is constantly picking on him, saying that he always makes a fuss out of his complications that he does not even really have. Durang shows this to emphasize Laura’s ridiculously low self confidence. Lawrence’s peculiar habits and mannerisms that emulate Laura’s are more exaggerated, but shows readers just how strange they actually were.
I don’t understand why Durang chose to focus on the over dramatization of Ginny, who was the equivalent to Jim in "The Glass Menagerie". In the parody, Ginny is obnoxious and bothersome, with her impaired hearing that causes her to shout as she speaks, making her come across as a nuisance. Ginny is also homosexual, which I think is situational irony on Lawrence’s part, because it adds to his rejection. Her character is completely different from Jim’s, considering he was the most normal and realistic one in the play.
Tom Wingvalley is similar to Tom Wingfield in the sense that he also wants to escape from his house to get away from his siblings. Although in the parody, Tom is implied to be homosexual like Ginny. I don't know what Durang's intentions were for writing him to be, if he even had any, or if he was trying to get a point across.
I was wondering why Durang chose to make Laura's parallel a boy (Lawrence) and why he made Amanda slightly different from her character in the original play. In the parody, she still cares for her children, but makes crude comments to them, though she is only "kidding".
Ryan Cuizon
ReplyDeletePer.2
I agree with all the statements made by the previous posters. Christopher Durang did an excellent job on creating a parody centralized on "The Glass Menagerie." The characters in the play have most if not all the characteristics as their counterparts in the original play.But the author greatly exaggerates the traits that had been major factors in the Glass Menagerie. As many others have said already Ginny,Jim's counterpart, seems to be the most over exaggerated in the play. Jim in the Glass Menagerie played somewhat of a pivotal role in the play, being the first gentleman caller of Laura and slightly bringing Laura out of her shell. I think it is for this reason that Durang chose to exaggerate Ginny the most. In "For Whom The Southern Belle Tolls" Ginny is deaf and obnoxious, being somewhat of the opposite of Jim. This unwanted traits in Ginny seem to poke fun at Tenessee Williams usual structure of play writing,romantic expectations, momentary fulfillment, and ultimate loss. As there may seem to be a moment of fulfillment Durang injects crude jokes from the other characters, diminishing the feeling of any type of fulfillment. Not only that, the ultimate loss seems to be far from any loss. Ginny was the most annoying character in the whole parody making the reader only feel rejoice and jubilation in the end. Not only that but Jim's character is turned into a homosexual, female making it even more ridiculously absurd.
I also agree with Hannah's opinion on why the father is not represented at all in the parody. But I also think that it has to do with the fact that Mr. Wingfield and his actions do not have the same importance to all the characters. Even though Amanda and Laura both acknowledge Mr. Wingfield's abandonment Tom is the one who is most affected by it. Basically I think the reason why Mr. Wingfield was not included in the parody was because the parody is primarily focused on the actions and personalities of Lawrence, Ginny, and a some of Amanda. Therefore Mr. Wingfield is not as important as he was in "The Glass Menagerie"
ReplyDeleteResponding to Krystin's post, I think Durang decided to make Laura a boy in the parody because it would be funny...but also because it allowed Laura to show more of her emotion, through Lawrence, that she held in in the actual play. For example, when Ginny broke Lawrence's glass stirrer Lawrence spoke out about at Ginny for breaking it unlike in "The Glass Menagerie" where Laura is silent about it. Amanda, in my opinion, hardly changed from the play because her personality was very eccentric. So there was really no need to change her to make her emotions obvious, since they already were. Basically meaning that she was crazy enough without the parody remake.
I also have a question about the ending to "The Glass Menagerie". So we went over the part where Tom tells Laura to blow her candles out and when he says the world is lit by lightning in class but it seems like there is something more. Maybe some symbolism? Any thoughts?
In response to Krystin’s question regarding why Durang made Laura a boy in this parody instead of keeping the gender... I think he did this because it heightens the ridiculous nature and notion of this character, which was essentially his primary motive in creating this spoof. Lawrence’s irrationally obsessive and timid disposition is completely uncharacteristic of a man of this day and age, who, as aforementioned, would generally be working outside of the domestic sphere. The notion of Lawrence remaining at home and engaging in these small hobbies—collecting swizzle sticks in this case—and being completely unconcerned with reality is incredibly bizarre and strays far from the general view on a male’s role in society. We might sympathize more with Laura when it comes to her shy temperament because it’s generally more feasible for a woman to be “domestic”, but Lawrence lacks all the attributes of a man and so he appears pathetic and pitiful to his family and readers.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'm curious if anyone could elaborate on this. There's a noticeable amount of religious references throughout the play- I was wondering if anyone could identify the significance/role of these particular lines in the play as a whole (for any of the references)?
In response to Josh's concerns about the mention of lightening, I'd like to add on to what I heard in class about the lightening symbolizing Tom's crave for excitement. This is supported by the passage in Scene 5 of The Glass Menagerie we analyzed in class about the delicate vs deceptive rainbows. Even in the parody, the lines following the one about lightening discuss how Tom feels that when he gets "those colored lights [of lightening] going," he feels as if he is on the drug LSD. From what I assume, people do drugs for the rush and excitement, and that is the feeling Tom obtains when he is "lit by lightening," something he feels the whole world yearns.
ReplyDeleteI would just like to add on to the gender switch of Laura/Lawrence and Jim/Ginny. I think the switch displays Durang's view of woman depending on husband as ridiculous. I mean a "feminine" caller? Who has ever heard of such a thing. Not to mention this feminine caller ends up being deaf and attracted to other females. Personally I think the idea of female dependency on male to survive is being made fun of by Durang. I build this off of Eric's mention of Durang's aim at a modern audience, who at the time was exposed to the founding of the Daughters of Bilitis (DOB), the first lesbian organization in the United States.
However, I too am still unsure of the symbolism behind the candles. If someone could please clarify this and the distortion of light through glass as seen in the menagerie, disco ball, and chandelier, it'd be great.
Melissa Del Vilar
ReplyDeletePer.2
In Andrea Umali's concern of the symbolism behind the candles, I believe that it represents a light, possibly a bright and happy mood and also sets the attitude. The light through the glass, seen in the menagerie, disco ball, and the chandelier shows that it is fragile and has a delicate and careful purpose. Also when Tom is speaking to the audience in Scene 5 about adventure, he mentions a large glass sphere that hung from the ceiling, this refers to to the light being shaped and distorted. I believe that the glass objects tie in with the glass menagerie collection. Although I am sure of what the fire escape represents for Laura and Tom, I am still unsure about the setting and what it says about the Wingfield family. If someone could please expand the importance of the setting throughout the play and if it represents anything, that would be really helpful. I also had a question about Amanda's character in the parody of Glass Menagerie. What was the reason she was so harsh with her son Lawrence, and why didn't he get upset everytime his mother blamed him for her 'horible' life? Personally, I would have had a hard time understanding and would have felt as if I should have never been born. In this play, I have more sympathy for Lawrence than Laura because Laura has a more supportive mother than Lawrence and at least her mother wants her to have happiness and good fortune, meanwhile Lawrence's mother wishes for a little bit of happiness. I found For Whom the Southern Belle Tolls more amusing and comedic but also a bit too much and overboard with making fun of The Glass Menagerie. Would anybody agree to this thought?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDino Digma
ReplyDeletePeriod 1
I believe that Christopher Durang’s parody is very ineffective in satirizing many aspects of Tennessee William’s “Glass Menagerie”. As stated by the many of peers above, the parody successfully ridicules all four of the main characters of the original play. I think that Lawrence and Ginny are the most satirized characters in the one-act play. In the parody, the writer satirizes Laura/Lawrence by bombarding the character with many defects and disabilities such as an imaginary limp, a rash, and asthma. As mentioned by peers in my class during the socratic seminar, I also believe that it is ironic that Lawrence has a collection of glass cocktail stirrers because in the original play, an alcoholic was one thing that Amanda despised. In the original play, Jim boasts about taking the public-speaking class. I believe that Durang successfully and hilariously satirizes Jim by characterizing Ginny as nearly deaf.
Did anybody else see the fire escape as a symbol in the original play? I think that the fire escape symbolizes one of the recurring themes of escape. Throughout the play, Tom is trying to escape the “trap” created by his mother, sister, and home. From the fire escape, Tom can escape from the confines of his family and enter a world of unrestricted adventure (symbolized by the dance hall). After coming home from the movies one night, Tom explains that he witnessed a magician escape from a nailed coffin. This example emphasizes the fact that Tom longs for an escape from his dependent family.\
I completely agree with Ms. Umali in that the lightning that struck during the conclusion of the play represented the adventure that Tom yearned for. Lightning, like adventure, is usually characterized as being exciting and unpredictable. Although, I am also unsure about the meaning behind the candles that Laura blows out at the end of the play. What do the blown out candles symbolize?
In response to Angeleen, I think that the most important religious reference occurs in Scene 5. The scene begins “Legend on the screen: ‘Annunciation’”. I was a bit confused and when I researched “Annunciation” I learned that it was the announcement by Gabriel to the Virgin Mary that she would give birth to the savior Jesus Christ. In Scene 5, Tom announces that he has invited Jim O’Connor to dinner. In the play, Jim represented the savior of Laura and the rest of her family. His initials even nearly match those of Jesus Christ.
Andrew Garcia
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
The fire escape throughout the play represented the escape, but it also represented the impossibility for them. Laura tripping on the fire escape, and the mother gets mad for having them (Wanting her kids to stay with her). this is further emphasized by the Parody, which foils and contrasts the characters, and how that Amanda tries to kick all of them out. Did you also notice their last name being Wingfield? Ironically contrasting the fact that they cannot escape.
Jim O'Connor does represent a Christ figure also by giving Laura wine before she changes and opens up towards him. (Water to Wine, Spring of the Spirit) Although the Parody obviously poked fun at Jim with Ginny, it also proved a good point. Ginny was (by biblical definition) sinful in every way, thus since Jim was the opposite, he was sinless.
From the beginning I wondered what the "D.A.R." was that Amanda attended so I looked it up; "The Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) is a lineage-based membership organization of women dedicated to promoting historic preservation, education, and patriotism." this also explains Amanda's need for Laura to be self-sufficient. However, what else could this mean? An allusion to woman getting/losing rights, or maybe a plead by the author to stop/support it?
Unzi Park
ReplyDeletePeriod 1
Differing from Andrea and Dino’s perspective, I believe that the “lightning” symbolizes more than Tom’s craving for excitement. In the play it becomes evident that Laura and Tom shared a close relationship. Tom even confesses that after leaving and attempting to leave Laura behind, Tom was “more faithful” than he intended to be. And since the play ends with Tom bidding a final goodbye with the act of Laura blowing out the candles, I have come to interpret this as the light in Tom’s life (symbolized by the candles) being completely blown out. The light of the candles could symbolize Laura as the light in Tom’s life, Tom’s memory of Laura, or even the light reflected off Laura’s glass menagerie. And so with all these interpretations of light concerning Laura being blown out, the only source of light in Tom’s life would technically be “lightning.”
As for the parody of The Glass Menagerie, “For Whom the Southern Belle Tolls,” I found it to be an effective one act play of William Tennessee’s original storyline. And as Eric mentioned, Durang modernizes certain aspects of the plot which is strikingly more effective for an audience of the 21st century. Although Durang bluntly exaggerates certain characteristics of the four main characters, the author is successful in directly exposing some of the veiled sentiments between the characters of the original play. As for Tom’s change of personality and relationship with Laura from intimate to hostile I believe it was to simply remind the audience that The Glass Menagerie is a flawed, one-sided perspective memory of Tom, and therefore, certain characteristics of Tom may have not been fully revealed in the original play.
Adrian Navarro
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
I completely agree to the opinions of those above. The parody successfully ridicules The Glass Menagerie, but also does more than that though. It points out the true flaws in each character and how ridiculous they really seem. Because of this, this gives me and new perspective on the story and makes me see how much of the characters have many flaws.
It is clear that the author is very annoyed by Laura. This evident in his mock version of her, as Lawrence, a hypochondriac who life obsession are cock tail stirrers. Though it may seem that the author is just poking fun at Laura, he's making the point that it is odd that Laura was obsessed with glass menagerie. It also points out how much a wimp Laura is, and how silly she really seems like. After reading this, I begin to wonder why is Laura like this? Why is she so obsessed at focusing on her flaws which limit her from living a real life?
The parody also pokes fun at the weird connection Laura and Jim have, or "Lawrence" and "Ginny" have. Lawrence has obsessions over cocktails stirrers, and Ginny likes to drink. It seemed like they would have a good connection, but instead their relationship was nothing more than pointless conversations. This makes me wonder why Jim acted the way he did with Laura. He seemed to have a true connection with Laura, why did he want Betty instead? And he if he loved Betty, why would he get so close to another girl like Laura?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteStephanie Villalobos
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
In response to Hannah and Josh’s ideas on the lack of the father’s presence in the parody, looking back at the two plays gave me a different idea. I believed in contrast to their ideas that Mr Wingfield was actually not in the play due to the belief of Durang that without the father involved the mother would be able to move on easier. Because the characters in the play are foils to their actually characters, the Amanda in the parody has already accepted the father’s disappearance and moved on unlike the real Amanda who clings to the past. In the parody she wants to get rid of her two children in order to live her life more freely. I believe that it shows how the father's memory in the house held the mother back to the past in The Glass Menagerie and leading to her living in fantasy.
Moving to Dino’s question by looking back at the last page of The Glass Menagerie, we see Tom’s monologue where he addresses the guilt he still has from leaving Laura. By urging her to blow her candles out and then immediately saying goodbye leads me to think that he is hoping that they where able to move forward that way he can live the rest of his life without that guilt following him everywhere. When Laura blows out the candles he finally lets that guilt go.
Look at the way my partner Wesley Virgin's report launches in this SHOCKING AND CONTROVERSIAL VIDEO.
ReplyDeleteWesley was in the military-and shortly after leaving-he revealed hidden, "MIND CONTROL" secrets that the CIA and others used to get anything they want.
As it turns out, these are the EXACT same tactics many celebrities (especially those who "come out of nowhere") and elite business people used to become wealthy and famous.
You probably know that you utilize only 10% of your brain.
That's really because the majority of your brain's power is UNTAPPED.
Maybe this thought has even occurred IN YOUR very own head... as it did in my good friend Wesley Virgin's head around seven years back, while riding a non-registered, beat-up garbage bucket of a car without a license and in his pocket.
"I'm very frustrated with going through life check to check! Why can't I turn myself successful?"
You took part in those types of questions, ain't it so?
Your own success story is waiting to be written. All you need is to believe in YOURSELF.
CLICK HERE To Find Out How To Become A MILLIONAIRE