The poem “To My Book” from Epigrams by Ben Jonson struck me as intriguing as it is rare to find the hopes of the author for the book in its first paragraph. The first two lines is the speaker (or in this case, the author himself) telling the book what its readers will be looking for. In some books you may find the author’s wish that you enjoy it, but very rarely do you ever hear an author admit that their book “…should’st be bold, licentious, full of gall, / Wormwood and sulpher, sharp and toothed withal” (3-4) let alone “become a petulant thing, hurl ink and wit / As madmen stones, not caring whom they hit.” (5-6) The book becomes a living thing in your mind, something that has a choice between being what it’s creator wants it to be and something else.
What really struck me though was line ten: “Made from the hazard of another’s shame—“ as it conveyed the author’s embarrassment in making his thoughts known to others. To my knowledge, many authors struggle with this concept as their work is a part of themselves. Sometimes it is a very private part hidden in metaphor and false images. Some fiction writers may strive to write their life story through more fanciful words in order to soften the blow of how common or repetitive it is. Finally, he ends with “He that departs with his own honesty / For vulgar praise, doth it too dearly buy.” (13-14) This is a bit confusing to me, but I assume that it means that many will finish reading his book will probably comment on the audacity of the author.
In this week’s set of readings, I found Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” the most interesting. When I first read the title, I thought it would be something like that of the Passionate Shepherd. A proposal to a lady in which he humbly admits that he has not much to offer or something of the sort. Therefore, it took me by surprise that it was instead a proposed solution to a common problem in impoverished Ireland. I couldn’t help but laugh by the time I got to the end of the fourth paragraph. The very idea of eating babies came as a surprise as I was expecting a more political answer to the poverty problem. The intriguing thought pulled me in and grabbed my attention for the rest of the “proposal”. I began to wonder what the world would be like if this had been put into action around the world. What if there was a world in which it was acceptable to eat burdensome infants? If modern-day humans came to this world, I am sure we would try to rectify it. It would not matter that doing so may just bring misery to the inhabitants as it is a horrifying concept to us.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Test 1
Category I – Option B
The monster is something that is present in every work of literature we make. Over the years, it has evolved and become more abstract: more of a concept than a physical thing. I believe the reason for this is that, in our gradual dominance over earth, we have all but eliminated the natural enemies that once plagued us. Without a common enemy to focus on, we turn inward, battling inner demons. The monster becomes more cunning, something intangible and often imperceptible. Thus, there is a perceptible change between Beowulf, Faerie Queene, Shakespeare’s Othello, and Holy Sonnet 9.
In Beowulf, the monster is obviously Grendal, his mother, and the dragon. They are physical creatures with an insatiable hunger that mere humans cannot reason with. They are also completely separate monsters with different reasons for fighting Beowulf. As described in the text, Grendal, “nursed a hard grievance. It harrowed him / to hear the din of the loud banquet / every day in the hall.” (87-9). The text further described the kinds of sounds being made, which give the impression that Grendal found not just the loudness of the noise offensive, but also the mention of god. He holds no personal grudge against Beowulf, as he was not there, but more against humanity as a whole. Grendal’s mother, however, had a personal grudge against Beowulf’s band of heros as shown in the following: “his mother / had sallied forth on a savage journey, / grief-racked and ravenous, desperate for revenge.” (1276-8). Finally, the dragon was “moved into a wrath” (2222) by “a slave / fleeing the heavy hand of some master,” (2223 – 2224) so it was not a personal attack against Beowulf, but it was Beowulf’s duty as king to protect his people. However, they are all definitely monsters and leave no conceptual gray areas to dwell on. Grendal “dwelt for a time in misery among the banished monsters, / Cain’s clan, whom the Creator had outlawed / and condemned as outcast.” (104-6) Since Grendal is part of “Cain’s clan”, Grendal’s mother was a “monsterous hell-bride” in more than just character. Finally, the dragon is, of course a fire-breathing, hoarding, greedy, giant lizard with barely any human-like characteristics.
In Faerie Queene, the monsters do not pose much of a threat against humanity as a whole and are, instead, a series of obstacles Redcrosse has to overcome. They are cunning and intend to corrupt the honorable knight and his pure lady as much as they wish to destroy them. The first monster was “Halfe like a serpent horribly displaide, / but th’ other halfe did womans shape retain” (Canto 1, 124-5) and did not have a name. Instead she was linked to the Catholic Church as described in verse 177: “Her vomit full of bookes and papers was,” as are the other monsters within the book. She was the least deceiving of the monsters in the whole book (from what I’ve seen) as the Catholic Church is also manifested as a monk who persuades Morpheus, god of sleep, to corrupt Redcrosse with indecent dreams of his lady.
In Othello the monster is not a single person, although you could say that Iago is most likely to fit the monster concept. Othello, the “hero”, could also be considered the monster as he kills his own love. However, the true monster is the seed of jealousy that resides in every human being. This “green-eyed monster, which doth mock / The meat it feeds on.” cannot be killed physically and is a constant source of misfortune, sin, and wrongdoing. Thus, the true monster is never killed in this story.
In 17th century holy sonnet number 9, the speaker refers to the monster is that which is inside us: “Why should intent or reason, born in me, / Make sins, else equal, in me more heinous?” (5-6) Previously he mentioned the apple and snake seen in Genisis as things more worth the term monster than what humanity has become.
Category II – Option D
Sonnet 130 seems the most interesting of the sonnets you assigned. As I read the poem, I got the impression of a man looking through a mound of poetry in the hope of finding one that accurately describes the woman he loves. This coincides with verses 1-8 as he compares the appearance of his mistress to that commonly found in poetry describing women. As the poem continues, his tone becomes one of incredulity at the high bar poetry has forced women to conform to. Indeed, in verse 9 he adds, “I love to hear her speak”, which starts to infuse the thought that his mistress does not need perfect beauty for him to love her. Further, in verse 11 and, especially, verse 12 he mocks the thought that a woman must be otherworldly in order for him to love her. After searching through flowery words, he concludes, “And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare / As any she belied with false compare,” since he has not found what he was looking for. Additionally, the last two verses finish the transformation from comparison of his mistress to poetry to comparison of the love he has for his mistress to the fake love written of in flowery poetry.
Required Question
The text I had the strongest emotional reaction to was Sonnet 93 as it describes what I have long thought the three men that have fallen in love with me have felt. “So shall I live supposing thou art true, / Like a deceived husband; so love’s face / May still seem love to me, though altered new— / Thy looks with me, thy heart in other place.“ (1-4) The speaker first uses metaphor to compare his woman’s faltering love to that of a cheating wife. At first, I deceived myself in believing that it was love I felt. I was inexperienced, confused, and eager to please and help others. I am still one to help for little gain, but I digress. Months passed by and I was still in love but I started to doubt myself. It was in my nature to seek time alone and even to disappear for days at a time. Unfortunately, the men I fell for were the clinging type and it worried me that I wasn’t feeling the same way they were.
Thus my uneasiness grew, although there wasn’t a tangible difference as portrayed in the next lines: “For there can live no hatred in thine eye; / Therefore in that I cannot know thy change. (5-6). I never hated them, but I did start to hate myself. I wanted to know what was so wrong with me that I could not show the same devotion as they did to me. After a while they started to suspect that I was having doubts: “In many’s looks and false heart’s history / Is writ in moods and frowns and wrinkles strange;” (7-8) I would suddenly have sour moods and push them away. However, I kept my feelings to myself and when they asked me what was wrong; I lied and told them naught.
“But heaven in thy creation did decree / That in thy face sweet love should ever dwell; / Whate’er thy thoughts or thy heart’s workings be, / Thy looks should nothing thence but sweetness tell.” (9 – 12) To this day, I still believe that they love me and that I have done them wrong. Many times I have thought of myself as a bane to man as shown in the last verse’s visuals: “How Eve’s apple doth thy beauty grow / If thy sweet virtue answer not thy show!”(13-14). It is always I that breaks up with them. There is also the visual of grass on the other side. They cannot be with me anymore and it takes them a long while for them to get over it. I am not saying that I am unique in this respect, but I do not know much about relationships nor had many friends growing up. Furthermore, I’m usually not one to talk about my feelings readily and I doubt if I have any true friends. Fortunately, I don’t mind it.
The monster is something that is present in every work of literature we make. Over the years, it has evolved and become more abstract: more of a concept than a physical thing. I believe the reason for this is that, in our gradual dominance over earth, we have all but eliminated the natural enemies that once plagued us. Without a common enemy to focus on, we turn inward, battling inner demons. The monster becomes more cunning, something intangible and often imperceptible. Thus, there is a perceptible change between Beowulf, Faerie Queene, Shakespeare’s Othello, and Holy Sonnet 9.
In Beowulf, the monster is obviously Grendal, his mother, and the dragon. They are physical creatures with an insatiable hunger that mere humans cannot reason with. They are also completely separate monsters with different reasons for fighting Beowulf. As described in the text, Grendal, “nursed a hard grievance. It harrowed him / to hear the din of the loud banquet / every day in the hall.” (87-9). The text further described the kinds of sounds being made, which give the impression that Grendal found not just the loudness of the noise offensive, but also the mention of god. He holds no personal grudge against Beowulf, as he was not there, but more against humanity as a whole. Grendal’s mother, however, had a personal grudge against Beowulf’s band of heros as shown in the following: “his mother / had sallied forth on a savage journey, / grief-racked and ravenous, desperate for revenge.” (1276-8). Finally, the dragon was “moved into a wrath” (2222) by “a slave / fleeing the heavy hand of some master,” (2223 – 2224) so it was not a personal attack against Beowulf, but it was Beowulf’s duty as king to protect his people. However, they are all definitely monsters and leave no conceptual gray areas to dwell on. Grendal “dwelt for a time in misery among the banished monsters, / Cain’s clan, whom the Creator had outlawed / and condemned as outcast.” (104-6) Since Grendal is part of “Cain’s clan”, Grendal’s mother was a “monsterous hell-bride” in more than just character. Finally, the dragon is, of course a fire-breathing, hoarding, greedy, giant lizard with barely any human-like characteristics.
In Faerie Queene, the monsters do not pose much of a threat against humanity as a whole and are, instead, a series of obstacles Redcrosse has to overcome. They are cunning and intend to corrupt the honorable knight and his pure lady as much as they wish to destroy them. The first monster was “Halfe like a serpent horribly displaide, / but th’ other halfe did womans shape retain” (Canto 1, 124-5) and did not have a name. Instead she was linked to the Catholic Church as described in verse 177: “Her vomit full of bookes and papers was,” as are the other monsters within the book. She was the least deceiving of the monsters in the whole book (from what I’ve seen) as the Catholic Church is also manifested as a monk who persuades Morpheus, god of sleep, to corrupt Redcrosse with indecent dreams of his lady.
In Othello the monster is not a single person, although you could say that Iago is most likely to fit the monster concept. Othello, the “hero”, could also be considered the monster as he kills his own love. However, the true monster is the seed of jealousy that resides in every human being. This “green-eyed monster, which doth mock / The meat it feeds on.” cannot be killed physically and is a constant source of misfortune, sin, and wrongdoing. Thus, the true monster is never killed in this story.
In 17th century holy sonnet number 9, the speaker refers to the monster is that which is inside us: “Why should intent or reason, born in me, / Make sins, else equal, in me more heinous?” (5-6) Previously he mentioned the apple and snake seen in Genisis as things more worth the term monster than what humanity has become.
Category II – Option D
Sonnet 130 seems the most interesting of the sonnets you assigned. As I read the poem, I got the impression of a man looking through a mound of poetry in the hope of finding one that accurately describes the woman he loves. This coincides with verses 1-8 as he compares the appearance of his mistress to that commonly found in poetry describing women. As the poem continues, his tone becomes one of incredulity at the high bar poetry has forced women to conform to. Indeed, in verse 9 he adds, “I love to hear her speak”, which starts to infuse the thought that his mistress does not need perfect beauty for him to love her. Further, in verse 11 and, especially, verse 12 he mocks the thought that a woman must be otherworldly in order for him to love her. After searching through flowery words, he concludes, “And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare / As any she belied with false compare,” since he has not found what he was looking for. Additionally, the last two verses finish the transformation from comparison of his mistress to poetry to comparison of the love he has for his mistress to the fake love written of in flowery poetry.
Required Question
The text I had the strongest emotional reaction to was Sonnet 93 as it describes what I have long thought the three men that have fallen in love with me have felt. “So shall I live supposing thou art true, / Like a deceived husband; so love’s face / May still seem love to me, though altered new— / Thy looks with me, thy heart in other place.“ (1-4) The speaker first uses metaphor to compare his woman’s faltering love to that of a cheating wife. At first, I deceived myself in believing that it was love I felt. I was inexperienced, confused, and eager to please and help others. I am still one to help for little gain, but I digress. Months passed by and I was still in love but I started to doubt myself. It was in my nature to seek time alone and even to disappear for days at a time. Unfortunately, the men I fell for were the clinging type and it worried me that I wasn’t feeling the same way they were.
Thus my uneasiness grew, although there wasn’t a tangible difference as portrayed in the next lines: “For there can live no hatred in thine eye; / Therefore in that I cannot know thy change. (5-6). I never hated them, but I did start to hate myself. I wanted to know what was so wrong with me that I could not show the same devotion as they did to me. After a while they started to suspect that I was having doubts: “In many’s looks and false heart’s history / Is writ in moods and frowns and wrinkles strange;” (7-8) I would suddenly have sour moods and push them away. However, I kept my feelings to myself and when they asked me what was wrong; I lied and told them naught.
“But heaven in thy creation did decree / That in thy face sweet love should ever dwell; / Whate’er thy thoughts or thy heart’s workings be, / Thy looks should nothing thence but sweetness tell.” (9 – 12) To this day, I still believe that they love me and that I have done them wrong. Many times I have thought of myself as a bane to man as shown in the last verse’s visuals: “How Eve’s apple doth thy beauty grow / If thy sweet virtue answer not thy show!”(13-14). It is always I that breaks up with them. There is also the visual of grass on the other side. They cannot be with me anymore and it takes them a long while for them to get over it. I am not saying that I am unique in this respect, but I do not know much about relationships nor had many friends growing up. Furthermore, I’m usually not one to talk about my feelings readily and I doubt if I have any true friends. Fortunately, I don’t mind it.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Reflection 5
The first definition for protagonist in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary reads, “the principal character in a literary work (as a drama or story)” and the second: “a leading actor, character, or participant in a literary work or real event.” Thus Iago is, in my opinion, the true main character and protagonist in this play. Who says the leading role has to be one of a hero? Alternatively, if it must, who is to say what the true hero is? In many stories, the hero gets away with many things, including murder. His actions are justified by reasons or the hope that his actions will benefit all of humanity. Indeed, many the so-called “hero” would end up in prison if tried in court of law.
Furthermore, the justification of Iago’s actions relates to how much reasoning is needed to absolve him of being a “bad guy”. Yes, he does admit that, “Hell and night / Must bring this monstrous birth to the world’s light.” (1.3.394-5) However, is he admitting that his plan is large or that it is evil? In my opinion, he believed that he was working for the greater good of the war as Othello’s choice in a lieutenant showed that he was corrupted. Indeed he states, “Why, there’s no remedy. ‘Tis the curse of service. / Preferment goes by letter and affection, / And not by old gradation, where each second / Stood heir to th’ first. Now sir, be judge yourself, / To love the Moor.” (1.1.37-41)
In my opinion, the modern film was morally debasing and uncouth in comparison to the actual play. For example, the music was horrible (although I may be slightly biased as I find rap music repulsive) and the acts committed were illegal, unlike those in the play. O and Desi were probably both underage as well as unwedded during the sex scene, unlike in the play where they were both of age and wedded. Near the end of the modern movie, O was sniffing cocaine while Othello had done no such thing. Hugo also got Mike, who was underage, drunk. This was also done in the play, but it was neither illegal nor frowned upon until Michael Cassio started fighting under its influence.
I also found the play to be more comedic than the modern movie as I was smiling more by the time we ended it (also hoping that we will see the rest of it in class today). The text, which was dry upon paper, came to life rather well in the film as the actors were more convincing and experienced. Although they were dressed and spoke for a different era, I believe the play related better to the adult world around us. Yes, the modern version had a more relatable context, but it had a much narrower audience.
Furthermore, the justification of Iago’s actions relates to how much reasoning is needed to absolve him of being a “bad guy”. Yes, he does admit that, “Hell and night / Must bring this monstrous birth to the world’s light.” (1.3.394-5) However, is he admitting that his plan is large or that it is evil? In my opinion, he believed that he was working for the greater good of the war as Othello’s choice in a lieutenant showed that he was corrupted. Indeed he states, “Why, there’s no remedy. ‘Tis the curse of service. / Preferment goes by letter and affection, / And not by old gradation, where each second / Stood heir to th’ first. Now sir, be judge yourself, / To love the Moor.” (1.1.37-41)
In my opinion, the modern film was morally debasing and uncouth in comparison to the actual play. For example, the music was horrible (although I may be slightly biased as I find rap music repulsive) and the acts committed were illegal, unlike those in the play. O and Desi were probably both underage as well as unwedded during the sex scene, unlike in the play where they were both of age and wedded. Near the end of the modern movie, O was sniffing cocaine while Othello had done no such thing. Hugo also got Mike, who was underage, drunk. This was also done in the play, but it was neither illegal nor frowned upon until Michael Cassio started fighting under its influence.
I also found the play to be more comedic than the modern movie as I was smiling more by the time we ended it (also hoping that we will see the rest of it in class today). The text, which was dry upon paper, came to life rather well in the film as the actors were more convincing and experienced. Although they were dressed and spoke for a different era, I believe the play related better to the adult world around us. Yes, the modern version had a more relatable context, but it had a much narrower audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)