Just a question: are we responsible for looking up and printing a copy of everyone's sonnets?
- my Italian sonnet:
IX---by Edna St. Vincent Millay
Here is a wound that never will heal, I know,
Being wrought not of a dearness and a death,
But of a love turned ashes and the breath
Gone out of beauty; never again will grow
The grass on that scarred acre, though I sow
Young seed there yearly and the sky bequeath
Its friendly weathers down, far underneath
Shall be such bitterness of an old woe.
That April should be shattered by a gust,
That August should be levelled by a rain,
I can endure, and that the lifted dust
Of man should settle to the earth again;
But that a dream can die, will be a thrust
Between my ribs forever of hot pain.
- my English/Shakespearean sonnet: 116
Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come:
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Happy Holidays Everyone
This is... my contribution to the blog.
Because I think we all need a break.
When will it snow?
Because I think we all need a break.
When will it snow?
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
What is the point?
Through all the agitation at the end of class, I don't know if we came to a final conclusion... what is the point of Sir Gawain? Other than to not take panties from promiscuous ladies.
I kind of feel like its the idea that failure is a part of life, no matter how virtuous/good you are. Gawain is the best of the knights (who are supposed to be the more pious people). Even the best of the best fails at some point.
I kind of feel like its the idea that failure is a part of life, no matter how virtuous/good you are. Gawain is the best of the knights (who are supposed to be the more pious people). Even the best of the best fails at some point.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Christian Symbolism in SGGK
To kick-start our discussion for tomorrow, and so that we will have a place to bounce ideas off eachother, I'm going to share some of the Christian references I picked up on in SGGK.
We have already talked in class a little about the symbolic nature of the shield and the girdle. Towards beginning of the poem, we can see Gawain's Christian faith through his prayer to the Virgin Mary, and through the symbols on his shield (the pentangle and an image of the Virgin Mary). I read that the pentangle symbolizes "the virtues to which Gawain aspires: to be faultless in his five senses; never to fail in his five fingers; to be faithful to the five wounds that Christ received on the cross; to be strengthened by the five joys that the Virgin Mary had in Jesus (the Annunciation, Nativity, Resurrection, Ascension, and Assumption); and to possess...the five virtues of knights: friendship, generosity, chastity, courtesy, and piety." The Virgin Mary's image on the shield ensures that Gawain never loses heart. The shield symbolizes Gawain's faith in the protection of God and Christ. Later in the poem, however, Gawain forsakes his trust in God and instead turns to the girdle given to him by Bertilak's wife for protection.
I also think Gawain's replacement of his faith in God with the girdle establishes a Genesis parallel. In Eden, Adam succumbed to Eve and ate the forbidden fruit. In SGGK, Gawain surrendered to Bertilak’s wife by accepting the, if you will, "false idol"--the girdle. Though Gawain knowingly sins (he immediately runs off to confession after receiving the girdle) by putting his faith in the girdle, the Green Knight pardons him. The Green Knight's mercy towards Gawain supports the Christian idea of a merciful God.
My last sentence puzzles me. Can we explore a little more the idea of a God or Christ figure in SGGK? Because I think certain aspects of the text support Gawain as having similar experiences to Jesus (see next paragraph), while others point to the Green Knight as being somewhat supernatural or divine.
My last point comes from the very end of the poem. The poet finishes the poem with a parallel between the green girdle and Christ's crown of thorns. Just as the crown of thorns represented both humiliation and triumph for Christ, the green girdle acts as a constant reminder to Gawain of his shame for his sins and as a reminder of his triumph in the beheading game. The girdle is ultimately like a scarlet letter which serves to remind Gawain of a time when he excessively valued his own mortal life. This carries the Christian message that we should not become to attached to our mortal life; it should be lived in a Christian way (trying to spread Jesus' word) so that we may have the reward of eternal life in heaven.
Comments? Other Christian symbols/allusions? Also, does anyone have any thoughts on the last line of the poem: "HONY SOYT QUI MAL PENCE"? I read that it literally means "shame to him who finds evil here," or, more fully interpreted, means "let the shame be to him who finds humility shameful."
We have already talked in class a little about the symbolic nature of the shield and the girdle. Towards beginning of the poem, we can see Gawain's Christian faith through his prayer to the Virgin Mary, and through the symbols on his shield (the pentangle and an image of the Virgin Mary). I read that the pentangle symbolizes "the virtues to which Gawain aspires: to be faultless in his five senses; never to fail in his five fingers; to be faithful to the five wounds that Christ received on the cross; to be strengthened by the five joys that the Virgin Mary had in Jesus (the Annunciation, Nativity, Resurrection, Ascension, and Assumption); and to possess...the five virtues of knights: friendship, generosity, chastity, courtesy, and piety." The Virgin Mary's image on the shield ensures that Gawain never loses heart. The shield symbolizes Gawain's faith in the protection of God and Christ. Later in the poem, however, Gawain forsakes his trust in God and instead turns to the girdle given to him by Bertilak's wife for protection.
I also think Gawain's replacement of his faith in God with the girdle establishes a Genesis parallel. In Eden, Adam succumbed to Eve and ate the forbidden fruit. In SGGK, Gawain surrendered to Bertilak’s wife by accepting the, if you will, "false idol"--the girdle. Though Gawain knowingly sins (he immediately runs off to confession after receiving the girdle) by putting his faith in the girdle, the Green Knight pardons him. The Green Knight's mercy towards Gawain supports the Christian idea of a merciful God.
My last sentence puzzles me. Can we explore a little more the idea of a God or Christ figure in SGGK? Because I think certain aspects of the text support Gawain as having similar experiences to Jesus (see next paragraph), while others point to the Green Knight as being somewhat supernatural or divine.
My last point comes from the very end of the poem. The poet finishes the poem with a parallel between the green girdle and Christ's crown of thorns. Just as the crown of thorns represented both humiliation and triumph for Christ, the green girdle acts as a constant reminder to Gawain of his shame for his sins and as a reminder of his triumph in the beheading game. The girdle is ultimately like a scarlet letter which serves to remind Gawain of a time when he excessively valued his own mortal life. This carries the Christian message that we should not become to attached to our mortal life; it should be lived in a Christian way (trying to spread Jesus' word) so that we may have the reward of eternal life in heaven.
Comments? Other Christian symbols/allusions? Also, does anyone have any thoughts on the last line of the poem: "HONY SOYT QUI MAL PENCE"? I read that it literally means "shame to him who finds evil here," or, more fully interpreted, means "let the shame be to him who finds humility shameful."
Midterm!
Ok so Theresa just reminded me that even though we do not have an actual test on SGGK, there is still the midterm to think about. So let us reserve this post as a study guide of sorts for the midterm. Lets list all the material that we think/know will be on the exam (in an organized way please...well as much as possible). Laz, your input will be greatly appreciated (hint!).
Saturday, December 15, 2007
This Weekend
I had meant to ask in class on Friday- what exactly are we supposed to be working on this weekend?
I'm printing out poems and figuring out the differences between the different kinds of poems. Should I be doing anything more?
Anisha
I'm printing out poems and figuring out the differences between the different kinds of poems. Should I be doing anything more?
Anisha
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Random Thoughts
Hey guys,
I read something really interesting in an article about Sir Gawain today. It was talking about the significance of the number three. Reading over Laz's idea sheet for the paper, it talks about symmetry (two) but I found more interesting things in the number three.
The lord's wife came to Gawain's bedroom three times. He was tempted to do evil three times. The hunts were on three different days. The Green Knight swings the axe three times. On the third day of the hunt/his stay, Gawain doesn't give the lord everything. On the third axe swing, the Green Knight gives him a small scar (but not deadly). While this in itself is pretty obvious stuff, I thought the Christian/pagan connection was interesting. In Christianity (as some of you know and can explain better than me), there is a connection between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This doesnt necessarily connect to just Christianity, though. Three is significant in many cultures. The idea that life comes in three stages (birth, life, and death/afterlife), "all things come in threes", etc. The passage I read said that this was the authors way of saying that everything is (in this story and in life) connected. The passage specifically suggested that it was a Christian reference. While I would agree that it might be, because three is such a significant number in many cultures (http://www.shawlministry.com/significance_of_three.htm ) , I don't know if we can say this reference is directly Christian. But its interesting.
PS: Did you know that JRR Tolkien translated a version of Sir Gawain? His translation is supposed to be one of the better versions. It's funny... Tolkien came up in my research of Beowulf as well (he had done a couple of essays on the monsters in Beowulf)
I read something really interesting in an article about Sir Gawain today. It was talking about the significance of the number three. Reading over Laz's idea sheet for the paper, it talks about symmetry (two) but I found more interesting things in the number three.
The lord's wife came to Gawain's bedroom three times. He was tempted to do evil three times. The hunts were on three different days. The Green Knight swings the axe three times. On the third day of the hunt/his stay, Gawain doesn't give the lord everything. On the third axe swing, the Green Knight gives him a small scar (but not deadly). While this in itself is pretty obvious stuff, I thought the Christian/pagan connection was interesting. In Christianity (as some of you know and can explain better than me), there is a connection between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This doesnt necessarily connect to just Christianity, though. Three is significant in many cultures. The idea that life comes in three stages (birth, life, and death/afterlife), "all things come in threes", etc. The passage I read said that this was the authors way of saying that everything is (in this story and in life) connected. The passage specifically suggested that it was a Christian reference. While I would agree that it might be, because three is such a significant number in many cultures (http://www.shawlministry.com/significance_of_three.htm ) , I don't know if we can say this reference is directly Christian. But its interesting.
PS: Did you know that JRR Tolkien translated a version of Sir Gawain? His translation is supposed to be one of the better versions. It's funny... Tolkien came up in my research of Beowulf as well (he had done a couple of essays on the monsters in Beowulf)
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Class Discussion
Hi guys,
I noticed Elizabeth posted- but my comments weren't relative to symbolism, so I figured I'd start a different post for this.
I was wondering if we drew some kind of conclusion on the class discussion today. We talked a lot about the beheading game, morality, and the choices that Gawain made. We jumped in and out of a lot of things, and it got a bit confusing, so I just wanted to leave the floor open on some concluding thoughts on the topic.
I was wondering what everyone felt about Gawain's guilt. I looked for passages that pointed specifically to Gawain's guilt before he was caught (after receiving the scarf from the lord's wife), and could not find any. It really draws me to the conclusion that he wasn't really guilty until he was caught. But then... what's the point? What is the message of this story?
As we were walking out of the room, we began to talk about how the "Golden Age of Knighthood" was ending. I kind of wonder if the author is trying to prove that this golden age never really exsisted. There was never really a time when everyone was 100% good, followed all rules of chivalry, and left out all human emotion. Even King Arthur's greatest knight falls to human emotions multiple times. I think this shows the imperfections and therefore intruths about this "Golden Age of Knighthood"
I realize this post kind of jumps around, but I just wanted to put some thoughts out there.
I noticed Elizabeth posted- but my comments weren't relative to symbolism, so I figured I'd start a different post for this.
I was wondering if we drew some kind of conclusion on the class discussion today. We talked a lot about the beheading game, morality, and the choices that Gawain made. We jumped in and out of a lot of things, and it got a bit confusing, so I just wanted to leave the floor open on some concluding thoughts on the topic.
I was wondering what everyone felt about Gawain's guilt. I looked for passages that pointed specifically to Gawain's guilt before he was caught (after receiving the scarf from the lord's wife), and could not find any. It really draws me to the conclusion that he wasn't really guilty until he was caught. But then... what's the point? What is the message of this story?
As we were walking out of the room, we began to talk about how the "Golden Age of Knighthood" was ending. I kind of wonder if the author is trying to prove that this golden age never really exsisted. There was never really a time when everyone was 100% good, followed all rules of chivalry, and left out all human emotion. Even King Arthur's greatest knight falls to human emotions multiple times. I think this shows the imperfections and therefore intruths about this "Golden Age of Knighthood"
I realize this post kind of jumps around, but I just wanted to put some thoughts out there.
Colors and Shapes: Symbolism in SGGK
Symbolism plays a huge role in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, so I decided to do some research on the most popular symbols...
The Color Green: Obviously this symbol is connected to the Green Knight, as well as the Green Chapel and Bertilak's wife's girdle. Critics have many theories about the significance of the color green. Throughout literature, green has represented the cycles of nature and rebirth. This ties into the cyclical time frame of the story; the store starts and ends in the New Year (rebirth) and with the Green Knight challenging someone's life. In medieval England, green also represented witchcraft and devilry. This accounts for the Green Knight's devilish appearance as well as Morgan's control over all the events. Through witchcraft, Morgan gives the Green Knight his appearance and his ability to survive once his head has been chopped off. Also, when paired with gold (as in the Green Knight's costume and the girdle), green is representative of the fading away of youth. In this poem, Gawain has just been knighted and is one of Arthur's youngest knights; he then goes on a journey in which he is forced to give up his idealistic views of chivalry and how it applies to human nature. Finally, the Celts superstitiously claimed that green was a symbol for death and misfortune (fairly self-explanatory I think).
The Color Red: Though not as important as the color green, red plays a significant role. It should be noted, for all of you who don't know this, red is placed opposite from green on the color wheel. The most significant showing of red in this tale is on Gawain's sheild. The pentangle is inscribed in gold on a shield of "gules." In heraldry, gules stands for "warrior," which aptly describes Arthur's knights. In this story, Gawain's greatest adversary (besides himself) is the Green Knight, thus it is fitting that Gawain's shield would be the opposite color of the Green Knight. The Green Knight is also described as having red eyes... I'm not sure of the significance of this but if anyone else has any ideas, please share. It should also be noted that red and green are Christmas colors, which is when the story takes place.
The Pentangle: Perhaps the most significant symbol in this story. This story is the first time that the word "pentangle" has been used in English and it is the first time that it is described as the "endless knot." This is also the only story in which Gawain's shield has a pentangle on it. To Gawain, the pentangle is a representation of all the virtues to which he aspires: to be faultless in his five senses; never to fail in his five fingers; to be loyal to the five wounds of Christ; to gain strength from the five joys of Mary; and to possess brotherly love, courtesy, piety, and chastity. In short, to be chivalrous. At the beginning of the story, the pentangle is the main symbol which represents Gawain's ideals of chivalry. However, at the end of the story, the pentangle's significance is overshadowed by that of the girdle.
The Girdle: The green girdle has many meanings throughout the story. In the third section, Bertilak's wife claims it has magical powers and Gawain desires it to keep himself safe during his meeting with the Green Knight. However, once he gets the girdle and finds out that it has no protective powers, Gawain is ashamed that he gave up his chivalrous ideals for such an object. Gawain now sees the girdle as a badge of cowardice and shame for both his actions and his love of mortal life. Once he returns home, in true archetypal manner, the other characters do not understand what the girdle represents to Gawain and they see it as a symbol of his knightly skills. As with the actual events of the story, the meaning of the girdle is cyclical in nature.
These are just some of the most important symbols in SGGK... if you have anything else to add, please do!
The Color Green: Obviously this symbol is connected to the Green Knight, as well as the Green Chapel and Bertilak's wife's girdle. Critics have many theories about the significance of the color green. Throughout literature, green has represented the cycles of nature and rebirth. This ties into the cyclical time frame of the story; the store starts and ends in the New Year (rebirth) and with the Green Knight challenging someone's life. In medieval England, green also represented witchcraft and devilry. This accounts for the Green Knight's devilish appearance as well as Morgan's control over all the events. Through witchcraft, Morgan gives the Green Knight his appearance and his ability to survive once his head has been chopped off. Also, when paired with gold (as in the Green Knight's costume and the girdle), green is representative of the fading away of youth. In this poem, Gawain has just been knighted and is one of Arthur's youngest knights; he then goes on a journey in which he is forced to give up his idealistic views of chivalry and how it applies to human nature. Finally, the Celts superstitiously claimed that green was a symbol for death and misfortune (fairly self-explanatory I think).
The Color Red: Though not as important as the color green, red plays a significant role. It should be noted, for all of you who don't know this, red is placed opposite from green on the color wheel. The most significant showing of red in this tale is on Gawain's sheild. The pentangle is inscribed in gold on a shield of "gules." In heraldry, gules stands for "warrior," which aptly describes Arthur's knights. In this story, Gawain's greatest adversary (besides himself) is the Green Knight, thus it is fitting that Gawain's shield would be the opposite color of the Green Knight. The Green Knight is also described as having red eyes... I'm not sure of the significance of this but if anyone else has any ideas, please share. It should also be noted that red and green are Christmas colors, which is when the story takes place.
The Pentangle: Perhaps the most significant symbol in this story. This story is the first time that the word "pentangle" has been used in English and it is the first time that it is described as the "endless knot." This is also the only story in which Gawain's shield has a pentangle on it. To Gawain, the pentangle is a representation of all the virtues to which he aspires: to be faultless in his five senses; never to fail in his five fingers; to be loyal to the five wounds of Christ; to gain strength from the five joys of Mary; and to possess brotherly love, courtesy, piety, and chastity. In short, to be chivalrous. At the beginning of the story, the pentangle is the main symbol which represents Gawain's ideals of chivalry. However, at the end of the story, the pentangle's significance is overshadowed by that of the girdle.
The Girdle: The green girdle has many meanings throughout the story. In the third section, Bertilak's wife claims it has magical powers and Gawain desires it to keep himself safe during his meeting with the Green Knight. However, once he gets the girdle and finds out that it has no protective powers, Gawain is ashamed that he gave up his chivalrous ideals for such an object. Gawain now sees the girdle as a badge of cowardice and shame for both his actions and his love of mortal life. Once he returns home, in true archetypal manner, the other characters do not understand what the girdle represents to Gawain and they see it as a symbol of his knightly skills. As with the actual events of the story, the meaning of the girdle is cyclical in nature.
These are just some of the most important symbols in SGGK... if you have anything else to add, please do!
Monday, December 10, 2007
Sonnets and Such
Hey guys,
I found this site for the basic explanation of what a sonnet was, and I thought it might be useful. http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/sonnet.html
So since I'm the first one to post (Because... I'm cool), I'm going to take claim to my sonetts, if that's okay?
My Italian Sonnet will is going to be by Edna St. Vincent Millay. It is Sonnet XLIII from Collected Poems. It begins with the line, "What lips my lips have kissed....".
My English/Shakespearian one is Sonnet 78 by Skakespeare, staring with the line, "So oft have I invoked thee for my Muse"
Just a note about that... I was trying to find a English sonnet that was not Shakespeare, and I could not find one that held to the pattern abab cdcd efef gg. There were others with altered patterns, but I'm not really sure if they still qualify for English sonnets, or if these have other names, so I'm going to stick to Ol' Shakespeare.
My Spenserian sonnet is by (surpise) Edmund Spenser. It's Sonnet 75 from Amoretti and the first line is "One day I wrote her name upon the strand" (Why did I think it was sand for some reason?)
So... who's going for poetry tomorrow (Not Fatima)
PS: Did you know the word "sonnet" means "little song"?
I found this site for the basic explanation of what a sonnet was, and I thought it might be useful. http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/sonnet.html
So since I'm the first one to post (Because... I'm cool), I'm going to take claim to my sonetts, if that's okay?
My Italian Sonnet will is going to be by Edna St. Vincent Millay. It is Sonnet XLIII from Collected Poems. It begins with the line, "What lips my lips have kissed....".
My English/Shakespearian one is Sonnet 78 by Skakespeare, staring with the line, "So oft have I invoked thee for my Muse"
Just a note about that... I was trying to find a English sonnet that was not Shakespeare, and I could not find one that held to the pattern abab cdcd efef gg. There were others with altered patterns, but I'm not really sure if they still qualify for English sonnets, or if these have other names, so I'm going to stick to Ol' Shakespeare.
My Spenserian sonnet is by (surpise) Edmund Spenser. It's Sonnet 75 from Amoretti and the first line is "One day I wrote her name upon the strand" (Why did I think it was sand for some reason?)
So... who's going for poetry tomorrow (Not Fatima)
PS: Did you know the word "sonnet" means "little song"?
Sunday, December 9, 2007
The Joys of Poetry...
Hey guys... quick question.
In poetry, the same rules of puncuation apply, so you don't need a comma at the end of every line. This might be a stupid question, but does the first letter of every new line (even if its not a new sentence) have to be capatalized? Like...
He renamed himself Edgar Allen Poe
and pretended to fight enemy foe.
(Don't ask)
But is the "a" in and supposed to be capitalized?
In poetry, the same rules of puncuation apply, so you don't need a comma at the end of every line. This might be a stupid question, but does the first letter of every new line (even if its not a new sentence) have to be capatalized? Like...
He renamed himself Edgar Allen Poe
and pretended to fight enemy foe.
(Don't ask)
But is the "a" in and supposed to be capitalized?
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Poem
I'm sure all of you are well underway to writing your poems.
I have a question though. How big are you all making your characters? Should they take up a page or is it ok if I have all 10 characters on one page?
Laz, if you see this, input would be greatly appreciated :D
I have a question though. How big are you all making your characters? Should they take up a page or is it ok if I have all 10 characters on one page?
Laz, if you see this, input would be greatly appreciated :D
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Sir Gawain and the Green Knight
What a crazy story O_o
While a bit hard to understand at times, it was pretty intriguing nonetheless.
The Green Knight was clothed in green (obviously) and gold. According to heraldry, green stands for hope and loyalty in love and gold stands for generosity. I'm not quite seeing those traits in the Green Knight except when he chooses not to kill Gawain.
I found it pretty interesting that the advances of the woman (who turned out to be the Green Knight's wife) was a test of sorts. I found it even more interesting when the Green Knight was actually the host of the castle where Gawain stayed. This reveals a whole network of relationships (Morgan is Gawain's aunt and Arthur's half-sister... crazy)
The three days of hunting where the "game" took place was interesting. First off, it kind of implied a homosexual relationship between the lord and Gawain. The lord said that they would exchange whatever they've won at the end of the day with eachother. Gawain, being stuck with such a beautiful lady as the lord's wife, was undoubtedly going to win some type of sexual favor, be it a kiss or whatever. The lord was out hunting. The lord's and Gawain's willingness to kiss does raise a few eyebrows. Could this just be that kissing was considered a bit looser than it is today? Or is there really something homosexual going on?
I read that the animals the lord catches decrease in value during the course of the three days. Deer are highly valued because, while they don't put up much of a fight, they challenged the hunters and their pelts and meat were of value. Also, the hunting party caught a lot of deer. The boar, while still of value and does challenge a hunter, can really only be valued due to its meat vs its fur. Lastly, the fox is the least valued animal. In Medieval times, while challenging to hunt, were thought of as deceitful creatures and it was very un-noble to hunt these. Their pelts were also of very little value.
The hunting parallels the "hunting" of Gawain performed by the host's wife. The wife essentially captures Gawain and pins him to the bed. He doesn't, however, give up without a fight. He complains and tells the lady that he must keep to his knight code. He does, however fail because the two qualities being challenge at the moment, chastity and courtesy, present a paradox when dealing with the lady. Refusing her advances preserves Gawain's chastity, but shows little courtesy. Accepting her advances, oppositely, preserves courtesy, but undermines chastity. As Gawain gives in little by little to the lady (accepting one, then two, then three kisses and a girdle), the hosts brings back decreasingly less valuable game.
Hmm. That's it for now.
Remember to post a comment in the Canterbury Tales post!
While a bit hard to understand at times, it was pretty intriguing nonetheless.
The Green Knight was clothed in green (obviously) and gold. According to heraldry, green stands for hope and loyalty in love and gold stands for generosity. I'm not quite seeing those traits in the Green Knight except when he chooses not to kill Gawain.
I found it pretty interesting that the advances of the woman (who turned out to be the Green Knight's wife) was a test of sorts. I found it even more interesting when the Green Knight was actually the host of the castle where Gawain stayed. This reveals a whole network of relationships (Morgan is Gawain's aunt and Arthur's half-sister... crazy)
The three days of hunting where the "game" took place was interesting. First off, it kind of implied a homosexual relationship between the lord and Gawain. The lord said that they would exchange whatever they've won at the end of the day with eachother. Gawain, being stuck with such a beautiful lady as the lord's wife, was undoubtedly going to win some type of sexual favor, be it a kiss or whatever. The lord was out hunting. The lord's and Gawain's willingness to kiss does raise a few eyebrows. Could this just be that kissing was considered a bit looser than it is today? Or is there really something homosexual going on?
I read that the animals the lord catches decrease in value during the course of the three days. Deer are highly valued because, while they don't put up much of a fight, they challenged the hunters and their pelts and meat were of value. Also, the hunting party caught a lot of deer. The boar, while still of value and does challenge a hunter, can really only be valued due to its meat vs its fur. Lastly, the fox is the least valued animal. In Medieval times, while challenging to hunt, were thought of as deceitful creatures and it was very un-noble to hunt these. Their pelts were also of very little value.
The hunting parallels the "hunting" of Gawain performed by the host's wife. The wife essentially captures Gawain and pins him to the bed. He doesn't, however, give up without a fight. He complains and tells the lady that he must keep to his knight code. He does, however fail because the two qualities being challenge at the moment, chastity and courtesy, present a paradox when dealing with the lady. Refusing her advances preserves Gawain's chastity, but shows little courtesy. Accepting her advances, oppositely, preserves courtesy, but undermines chastity. As Gawain gives in little by little to the lady (accepting one, then two, then three kisses and a girdle), the hosts brings back decreasingly less valuable game.
Hmm. That's it for now.
Remember to post a comment in the Canterbury Tales post!
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Canterbury Tales Review
So with our lovely two-day (thanks, Albert) test approaching, I figured we could maybe post some good review websites or personal thoughts/interpretations/ideas that might benefit the whole class. I've found one good site that has a really comprehensive biography of Chaucer and links to lots of essays and articles on the Canterbury Tales in general and, more specifically, each of the tales. The link is: http://www.luminarium.org/medlit/chaucer.htm.
Also, does anyone have any insight on the relationships between the characters or on how Chaucer's background (member of a merchant family) affected his writing and description of the different characters? I'm feeling a little confused about the objective portion of the test...
Also, does anyone have any insight on the relationships between the characters or on how Chaucer's background (member of a merchant family) affected his writing and description of the different characters? I'm feeling a little confused about the objective portion of the test...
Monday, November 19, 2007
Canterbury Tales Question
I had a quick question about the Knight's Tale. Dan mentioned that it was somewhat based on other stories mixed together. Does anyone know what those stories were? And how well-known they were in Chaucer's society?
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner
R. Jarrell
From my mother's sleep I fell into the State,
And I hunched in its belly till my wet fur froze.
Six miles from earth, loosed from its dream of life,
I woke to black flak and the nightmare fighters.
When I died they washed me out of the turret with a hose.
And I hunched in its belly till my wet fur froze.
Six miles from earth, loosed from its dream of life,
I woke to black flak and the nightmare fighters.
When I died they washed me out of the turret with a hose.
My failed attempt to scan it :)
˘ daf/ asdaf˘asd / asdaf/ asdaf˘ as˘ asd/ asd˘ a/
Six miles from earth, loosed from its dream of life,
˘ as/as ˘asd / aas/ as˘ aas˘aa / as˘asdaf /as ˘
I woke to black flak and the nightmare fighters.
˘ asda˘as / ass˘ asdaf/ asd˘as / as˘ a˘ as/ a˘ as˘ as˘as /
When I died they washed me out of the turret with a hose.
˘asdaf ˘ aa/ aa˘ aaaa/ aa˘a / a˘ a/ a˘ aa/
From my mother's sleep I fell into the State,
˘ aas˘ as/ asdaf˘ a/ a˘ a/ a˘ as˘ as˘ as/ asd/
And I hunched in its belly till my wet fur froze.
˘ daf/ asdaf˘asd / asdaf/ asdaf˘ as˘ asd/ asd˘ a/
Six miles from earth, loosed from its dream of life,
˘ as/as ˘asd / aas/ as˘ aas˘aa / as˘asdaf /as ˘
I woke to black flak and the nightmare fighters.
˘ asda˘as / ass˘ asdaf/ asd˘as / as˘ a˘ as/ a˘ as˘ as˘as /
When I died they washed me out of the turret with a hose.
So wrong....
Maybe the thing with 5 stress per line - MAYBE
*dusts off th' olde flame shield*
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Random Absurdist Thought
This weekend I saw school play, The Importance of Being Earnest. I was going just for leisure, so I hadn't really paid attention to the playwright's name, or any background information about the show. It turns out that the Oscar Wilde (author of the play) writes absurdist ideas into his plays, which made it very interesting. I followed this absurdist play better than I did the last one. I found a review of this play from the Theatre of Western Springs (http://www.theatrewesternsprings.com/Actives/archives/Earnest/Earnest.htm)
"In the world of Oscar Wilde, pride, respectability, and societal standards are taken to such absurd extremes that his philosophy, 'that we should treat all the trivial things in life seriously, and all the serious things in life with sincere and studied triviality' seems somehow plausible. In Wilde's world, all of the characters take pride in absurd things 000 their first names, their clothes, their shortsightedness ---to the point where it seems like the whole world is an insane paradox. And it's only because the real society of Wilde's time, and our own, takes pride in ridiculous things that we can laugh at the satire that is so rich in his work."
There were many absurdist things that stuck out in my mind after the play. A couple of times, two sets of charactors would be having two different sets of conversations, and then begin to speak at the same time with the same lines. There were also certain silly elements- both girls only wanted to marry men named Earnest. There were also many interesting lines that I thought were fairly absurd. Here's one :
Lady Bracknell: Well, I must say, Algernon, that I think it is high time that Mr. Bunbury made up his mind whether he was going to live or to die. This shilly-shallying with the question is absurd. Nor do I in any way approve of the modern sympathy with invalids. I consider it morbid. Illness of any kind is hardly a thing to be encouraged in others. Health is the primary duty of life. I am always telling that to your poor uncle, but he never seems to take much notice... as far as any improvement in his ailment goes. I should be much obliged if you would ask Mr. Bunbury, from me, to be kind enough not to have a relapse on Saturday, for I rely on you to arrange my music for me. It is my last reception, and one wants something that will encourage conversation, particularly at the end of the season when every one has practically said whatever they had to say, which, in most cases, was probably not much.
I'm sorry if I rambled, but I just thought it was interesting :)
"In the world of Oscar Wilde, pride, respectability, and societal standards are taken to such absurd extremes that his philosophy, 'that we should treat all the trivial things in life seriously, and all the serious things in life with sincere and studied triviality' seems somehow plausible. In Wilde's world, all of the characters take pride in absurd things 000 their first names, their clothes, their shortsightedness ---to the point where it seems like the whole world is an insane paradox. And it's only because the real society of Wilde's time, and our own, takes pride in ridiculous things that we can laugh at the satire that is so rich in his work."
There were many absurdist things that stuck out in my mind after the play. A couple of times, two sets of charactors would be having two different sets of conversations, and then begin to speak at the same time with the same lines. There were also certain silly elements- both girls only wanted to marry men named Earnest. There were also many interesting lines that I thought were fairly absurd. Here's one :
Lady Bracknell: Well, I must say, Algernon, that I think it is high time that Mr. Bunbury made up his mind whether he was going to live or to die. This shilly-shallying with the question is absurd. Nor do I in any way approve of the modern sympathy with invalids. I consider it morbid. Illness of any kind is hardly a thing to be encouraged in others. Health is the primary duty of life. I am always telling that to your poor uncle, but he never seems to take much notice... as far as any improvement in his ailment goes. I should be much obliged if you would ask Mr. Bunbury, from me, to be kind enough not to have a relapse on Saturday, for I rely on you to arrange my music for me. It is my last reception, and one wants something that will encourage conversation, particularly at the end of the season when every one has practically said whatever they had to say, which, in most cases, was probably not much.
I'm sorry if I rambled, but I just thought it was interesting :)
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Coat of Arms in Real Life
I walked into my room this afternoon, and while trying to grab something from my bookshelf, I took a peek at my dance trophies. I realized that many of them could be imitations of coats-of-arms. I'm not one hundred percent sure, because their style is different, but I think the basic idea is the same. Here's a site with similar trophies on it:
http://www.raymondstrophycenter.com/html/Trophies.php
There is no actual shield, but many of the elements are the same. Each trophee has different elements from the various sports represented on them. There are symbols of that sport every where. There is also a wreath on many of them. While there isn't a motto, there is usually a place at the bottom for an inscription.
I'm not sure if this applies 100%, but I thought I'd post it and find out ! Does anyone care to disagree with me?
http://www.raymondstrophycenter.com/html/Trophies.php
There is no actual shield, but many of the elements are the same. Each trophee has different elements from the various sports represented on them. There are symbols of that sport every where. There is also a wreath on many of them. While there isn't a motto, there is usually a place at the bottom for an inscription.
I'm not sure if this applies 100%, but I thought I'd post it and find out ! Does anyone care to disagree with me?
Heraldric Sightings
So I thought I would start a post on our random heraldric sightings...
Today I was looking around for signs of heraldry and found it on the grille of my own car, a Volvo.
As you can see, the grille is divided Per Bend Sinister, signifying defense or protection. I believe that the Volvo company chose this particular design to imply that the company makes safe, durable, strong cars. Also, the charge in the center is the "male" symbol. This could again signify the strength of the brand.
Also while searching, I came across a useful website that explains the meanings of charges and has good example coats of arms.
While on this site I came across what is probably my favorite family motto: Ut apes, geometriam --"As bees, geometry (the Petty family)." I have absolutely no idea what this means, but I like it.
Keep your eyes open for those heraldric elements!
Monday, October 29, 2007
Canterbury Tales: Prologue
I found a pretty good recording of the first 18 lines of the prologue of the Canterbury Tales, so I figured I'd post the site on here. The link is http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/gp1-18.wav. It's Middle English, so it's definitely helpful to have a copy of the text in front of you (otherwise it's kind of hard to understand). Good luck memorizing!
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Rhinoceros Performance
Friday was a wonderful day filled with lots of pep (E-I-G-H-T 08!!!) and riddles, but, sadly, no Rhinoceros. Since Laz wasn't there and we didn't get a chance to start discussing the performance we saw on Thursday night, I figured we could start discussing it on here.
I thought the performance did a great job of eliminating the "fourth wall" between the actors and the audience. This was accomplished through the mention of one of Ionesco's plays by Jean when suggesting to Berenger that he make himself more cultured. The smallness of the theater, and the way Berenger addressed the audience in Act Three served this purpose as well. Additionally, Berenger's used a script throughout the entire performance, bringing attention to himself as an actor and making the audience very aware that what they were watching was in fact a scripted, artificial play. Ionesco strived to ensure that the audience never lost themselves in the play, that they were grounded in the fact that what they were watching was not reality, and that the play should not be used to escape their lives. The elimination of the "fourth wall" makes the play a part of your "real life," making it just as real as what you do before or after the play.
Another idea for Berenger's use of the script is that it shows that we are all puppets. We are all conformists. There is no original thought. We say and think the things that society tells us to. Berenger acts and speaks like the town drunkard because that is what is expected of him, and we all play out the stereotypes assigned to us.
I think the performance of the show illustrated the idea of "collective consciousness" really well. During the first act, the parallel dialogue between Jean and Berenger and the Old Gentleman and the Logician, with some overlapping lines completely the same, first brings light to the existence of a collective consciousness, which will become increasingly more apparent and important throughout the remainder of the show.
I had a lot of fun, and I think it was definitely helpful to see it done on stage. Favorite part of the show: Jean. <3
Comments and/or other ideas?
I thought the performance did a great job of eliminating the "fourth wall" between the actors and the audience. This was accomplished through the mention of one of Ionesco's plays by Jean when suggesting to Berenger that he make himself more cultured. The smallness of the theater, and the way Berenger addressed the audience in Act Three served this purpose as well. Additionally, Berenger's used a script throughout the entire performance, bringing attention to himself as an actor and making the audience very aware that what they were watching was in fact a scripted, artificial play. Ionesco strived to ensure that the audience never lost themselves in the play, that they were grounded in the fact that what they were watching was not reality, and that the play should not be used to escape their lives. The elimination of the "fourth wall" makes the play a part of your "real life," making it just as real as what you do before or after the play.
Another idea for Berenger's use of the script is that it shows that we are all puppets. We are all conformists. There is no original thought. We say and think the things that society tells us to. Berenger acts and speaks like the town drunkard because that is what is expected of him, and we all play out the stereotypes assigned to us.
I think the performance of the show illustrated the idea of "collective consciousness" really well. During the first act, the parallel dialogue between Jean and Berenger and the Old Gentleman and the Logician, with some overlapping lines completely the same, first brings light to the existence of a collective consciousness, which will become increasingly more apparent and important throughout the remainder of the show.
I had a lot of fun, and I think it was definitely helpful to see it done on stage. Favorite part of the show: Jean. <3
Comments and/or other ideas?
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Who represents what in the play?
I think we discussed this a bit in class. I want to know what everyone thinks about the charactors- who stands for what, if anything.
Just a few random thoughts of what I think...
Logician: Everything in society that is supposed to be "logical". Human's sense of logic, and the everyday things we do, are absurd.
Berenger: I think he represents what the common man strives to be, to a certain extend. He's the only charactor that we can relate to, and he's the one who "stands up for what is right". Most people would like to beleive they could be like this, so Ionesko creates a charactor that we can relate to. Unfortunately, he (maybe) turns into a rhino again, kind of bursting the bubble of all those who beleive that the good/brave (themselves) will strive in hard times.
Can someone please explain Daisy? I still don't really understand her.
Just a few random thoughts of what I think...
Logician: Everything in society that is supposed to be "logical". Human's sense of logic, and the everyday things we do, are absurd.
Berenger: I think he represents what the common man strives to be, to a certain extend. He's the only charactor that we can relate to, and he's the one who "stands up for what is right". Most people would like to beleive they could be like this, so Ionesko creates a charactor that we can relate to. Unfortunately, he (maybe) turns into a rhino again, kind of bursting the bubble of all those who beleive that the good/brave (themselves) will strive in hard times.
Can someone please explain Daisy? I still don't really understand her.
Monday, October 22, 2007
More WWII and Marxism Parallels
So, I just had a few more WWII and Marxist parallels that I wanted to throw out there and get some feedback on. (It was either write a post or write another college essay...I chose the lesser of two evils. :P)
In the beginning of Act Two, Botard is very skeptical of all of the accounts of the rhinoceroses, and he believes that the stories are just being sensationalized by journalists. Even after seeing a rhino, Botard says, "I can't see a thing. It's an illusion." He attributes this illusion to "collective psychosis." This made me think of all those who did/do not believe in the Holocaust. Additionally, in the play, Berenger says that if he were to read about an epidemic in another country in the newspaper, he could maintain an objective detachment. He goes on to say, "When you're involved yourself...you can't help feeling concerned." These statements illustrate the human ability to turn a blind eye to even the most horrific situations. 'Out of sight, out of mind.' This mentality may be used to explain why intervention did not come sooner in the case of WWII. I think Ionesco was commenting on the world's inaction in situations such as the rise of the Iron Guard in Romania and the Nazis in Germany (and surrounding European nations) when he wrote Berenger's line, "We sometimes do harm by simply not preventing harm."
I think another important fascist parallel is Jean and Berenger's discussion on their (in)ability to control their dreams. Jean states that he never dreams, that he is always in conscious control of his thoughts. This reminded my of the fascist ideal that individual interests and thoughts be subverted to those of the state. Berenger, on the other hand, shamefully admits that he sometimes loses control over his thoughts in his dreams. Control seems to be a very important issue here. I think because the world seemed so out of control to the characters, they tried to cling to anything they could control. I do, however, think it's absurd that they tried to control their thoughts even in their dreams. Dreams are subconscious experiences that can't (normally) be controlled by the dreamer.
One last thing. I thought Daisy's comment towards the end of the play that human love was a weakness could be interpreted as a Marxist statement. Communist societies strive for equality amongst members, and human love interferes with this. When people love, they automatically establish an internal heirarchy, ordered from most to least loved. Going by this logic, we can say that Daisy has Marxist tendencies.
Comments on my ramblings?
In the beginning of Act Two, Botard is very skeptical of all of the accounts of the rhinoceroses, and he believes that the stories are just being sensationalized by journalists. Even after seeing a rhino, Botard says, "I can't see a thing. It's an illusion." He attributes this illusion to "collective psychosis." This made me think of all those who did/do not believe in the Holocaust. Additionally, in the play, Berenger says that if he were to read about an epidemic in another country in the newspaper, he could maintain an objective detachment. He goes on to say, "When you're involved yourself...you can't help feeling concerned." These statements illustrate the human ability to turn a blind eye to even the most horrific situations. 'Out of sight, out of mind.' This mentality may be used to explain why intervention did not come sooner in the case of WWII. I think Ionesco was commenting on the world's inaction in situations such as the rise of the Iron Guard in Romania and the Nazis in Germany (and surrounding European nations) when he wrote Berenger's line, "We sometimes do harm by simply not preventing harm."
I think another important fascist parallel is Jean and Berenger's discussion on their (in)ability to control their dreams. Jean states that he never dreams, that he is always in conscious control of his thoughts. This reminded my of the fascist ideal that individual interests and thoughts be subverted to those of the state. Berenger, on the other hand, shamefully admits that he sometimes loses control over his thoughts in his dreams. Control seems to be a very important issue here. I think because the world seemed so out of control to the characters, they tried to cling to anything they could control. I do, however, think it's absurd that they tried to control their thoughts even in their dreams. Dreams are subconscious experiences that can't (normally) be controlled by the dreamer.
One last thing. I thought Daisy's comment towards the end of the play that human love was a weakness could be interpreted as a Marxist statement. Communist societies strive for equality amongst members, and human love interferes with this. When people love, they automatically establish an internal heirarchy, ordered from most to least loved. Going by this logic, we can say that Daisy has Marxist tendencies.
Comments on my ramblings?
IMPORTANT
I reserved the tickets for Rhinosoraus. I reserved 8 tickets, and they are being held with my dad's credit card. Everyone will bring cash to the door when we get to the show (15 minutes early).
If anyone needs to back out, they must do so by tomorrow morning. If they don't my dad's credit card will be charged and I'll be angry. For a long time. :)
Hope this helps.
Can someone talk to Matt and make sure he's going? I got a ticket for him :)
Anisha
If anyone needs to back out, they must do so by tomorrow morning. If they don't my dad's credit card will be charged and I'll be angry. For a long time. :)
Hope this helps.
Can someone talk to Matt and make sure he's going? I got a ticket for him :)
Anisha
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Interesting Idea
While doing a little research on Rhinoceros, I came across interesting.
In the first scene, the logician tried to explain a syllogism to the Old Gentleman. I looked up the word "syllogism" online to double check the definition, and found that it means reasoning in which a conclusion is derived from two premises. For whatever reason, this stuck a chord.
I remember reading, years ago, that Hitler used this technique to persuade the Germans to elect him leader. He made one statement which was completely true, one statement which was a half-truth, half-lie, and one conclusive statement that was completely untrue. Linked together, people would see this as logic. I think the example was something like this:
1. The German economy has suffered greatly after World War I (True)
2. This is the fault of outside forces and outsiders who hurt Germany (Half true depending on how you look at it... Versailles Treaty, etc)
3. Therefore, Jews are the reason that Germany is suffereing (lie)
I don't think this was the exact statement. It made a little more sense and linked better than that. Either way, I think I got the basic point across. I just thought it was an interesting WWII/Nazi parallel.
In the first scene, the logician tried to explain a syllogism to the Old Gentleman. I looked up the word "syllogism" online to double check the definition, and found that it means reasoning in which a conclusion is derived from two premises. For whatever reason, this stuck a chord.
I remember reading, years ago, that Hitler used this technique to persuade the Germans to elect him leader. He made one statement which was completely true, one statement which was a half-truth, half-lie, and one conclusive statement that was completely untrue. Linked together, people would see this as logic. I think the example was something like this:
1. The German economy has suffered greatly after World War I (True)
2. This is the fault of outside forces and outsiders who hurt Germany (Half true depending on how you look at it... Versailles Treaty, etc)
3. Therefore, Jews are the reason that Germany is suffereing (lie)
I don't think this was the exact statement. It made a little more sense and linked better than that. Either way, I think I got the basic point across. I just thought it was an interesting WWII/Nazi parallel.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Mum Puppettheatre
For those of you that said i was noncommittal<--- o.O
I just have to say that I don't remember paying for Sesame Street.
(not to judge beforehand)
Anyway...
Thursdays 7:00 PM's performance is
$25.00 +$5.00 processing fee (whatever that is).
Here's the info: 15 Arch Street • Philadelphia, PA 19106
Tickets 215.925.7686
Office 215.925.8686
Email info@mumpuppet.org
Website TIX
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Theatre of the Absurd
I don't really have much to say on the Theatre of the Absurd right now, but I figured I would get the ball rolling on discussion...
While reading Jerome P. Crabb's essay on the the Theatre of the Absurd (I forget the website url...), I came across a sentence that really stuck with me. Supporters of Absurdist Theatre often claim that "Change is only an illusion." At first, this concept was absolutely mind-blowing to me, but I'm going to try to put it in the context of "Rhinoceros" and see if it makes sense...
Throughout the play, people keep changing into rhinoceroses and Berenger sees this as a change in their characters. However, these characters do not undergo any internal change (which is the main focal point of the story) and by the end of the story they are exactly the same as they started. Berenger is so preoccupied by the other characters' outward changes that he does not see that no inward change has occurred.
However, this model does not hold up for Berenger himself who undergoes a huge metamorphoses from a state of apathy to one of great concern for humanity.
In conclusion, I don't know if my post made any sense. Please feel free to show me how wrong I am or to make a better arguement for what I am trying to say.
While reading Jerome P. Crabb's essay on the the Theatre of the Absurd (I forget the website url...), I came across a sentence that really stuck with me. Supporters of Absurdist Theatre often claim that "Change is only an illusion." At first, this concept was absolutely mind-blowing to me, but I'm going to try to put it in the context of "Rhinoceros" and see if it makes sense...
Throughout the play, people keep changing into rhinoceroses and Berenger sees this as a change in their characters. However, these characters do not undergo any internal change (which is the main focal point of the story) and by the end of the story they are exactly the same as they started. Berenger is so preoccupied by the other characters' outward changes that he does not see that no inward change has occurred.
However, this model does not hold up for Berenger himself who undergoes a huge metamorphoses from a state of apathy to one of great concern for humanity.
In conclusion, I don't know if my post made any sense. Please feel free to show me how wrong I am or to make a better arguement for what I am trying to say.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Paganism and Christianity in Beowulf
While doing research for our binders, I'm sure many of us came up with A LOT of information on the role of religion in Beowulf. The author seemed to be particularly good at balancing Christianity and paganism, and as Laz said, working together in relative harmony. Obviously there's a lot to discuss, and a million different places you could begin, but here I go...
Some of the Christian influences in this story are obvious. The reference to Grendal as Cain's decendant, the use of "He" in capital letters, the alusions to Biblical themes. However, there are also pagan influences (the men praying to "heathen" gods, the ideal man having super-human powers, etc). I think this will eventually lead to questions about the author. Was he a Christian?
One piece of research I picked up was an essay entitled "The Christian Coloring in the Beowulf" by F.A. Blackburn. The author suggested that most scholars beleive one of three thigns about the author:
1. The author was a Christian, who heard about the (pagan) story and used it as matieriel, making it more Biblical.
2. The author was Christian, who used old story ideas (which were not in the verse form yet) and added Christian meanings and influences to them.
3. The author was a pagan, and at a later date other authors edited it.
From what I understand, all three of these ideas basically have the same major idea behind it: It was a pagan story originally, with some kind of later Christian influence.
It is my personal beleif that the pagan and Christian references in this story have to do with the balance and collection of Beowulf. Laz said that Beowulf had MANY different versions when told. I think its fair to say that most of the earlier ones were entirely pagan based (before Christianity had spread), and as the years went by, some added Christian elements to the story. The author of this version wanted to balance out the Christian and pagan elements, adding in enough of both so that neither story was destroyed. He seemed to do a good job of it. Opinions?
Some of the Christian influences in this story are obvious. The reference to Grendal as Cain's decendant, the use of "He" in capital letters, the alusions to Biblical themes. However, there are also pagan influences (the men praying to "heathen" gods, the ideal man having super-human powers, etc). I think this will eventually lead to questions about the author. Was he a Christian?
One piece of research I picked up was an essay entitled "The Christian Coloring in the Beowulf" by F.A. Blackburn. The author suggested that most scholars beleive one of three thigns about the author:
1. The author was a Christian, who heard about the (pagan) story and used it as matieriel, making it more Biblical.
2. The author was Christian, who used old story ideas (which were not in the verse form yet) and added Christian meanings and influences to them.
3. The author was a pagan, and at a later date other authors edited it.
From what I understand, all three of these ideas basically have the same major idea behind it: It was a pagan story originally, with some kind of later Christian influence.
It is my personal beleif that the pagan and Christian references in this story have to do with the balance and collection of Beowulf. Laz said that Beowulf had MANY different versions when told. I think its fair to say that most of the earlier ones were entirely pagan based (before Christianity had spread), and as the years went by, some added Christian elements to the story. The author of this version wanted to balance out the Christian and pagan elements, adding in enough of both so that neither story was destroyed. He seemed to do a good job of it. Opinions?
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Feminine Monstrosity (and Other Themes) from Beowulf
At the end of class today Laz gave us the opportunity to pick what we'll be talking about tomorrow, and some of us (tentatively) decided on the portrayal of females in the poem. I wanted to share some information I learned from the articles I read on this topic, and I also wanted to set up a post so we can talk about this theme and the others we'll be discussing in the coming days.
The idea of feminine monstrosity is one that is crucial to the story of Beowulf. One article I read discussed the monstrous nature of both Grendel's mother and Thryth. The difference between the two, it seems, is that Thryth, due to her social status as the daughter of a king, is able to function within society. Despite her evil nature and cruel actions, she is never outright condemned as a monster by the poet. Additionally, after her marriage, she becomes less evil. Is this a commentary on how men "tame" women once they're married?
Grendel's mother, however, is held as one of literature's greatest examples of feminine monstrosity. Described as greedy, grim-minded, an a monster woman, her entrance to Heorot strikes even more terror into the hearts of the men present than does Grendel's entrance. Another article I read, however, proposed the idea that Grendel's mother has received unfair treatment amongst literary scholars; some believe that readers are predisposed to read Grendel's mother as being monstrous due to all of the hoopla surrounding her character. This theory contrasts sharply the fact that the poet depicts, and most readers perceive, Grendel's mother as a horrible, grotesque monster, but does not do so with Grendel, who, in actuality, is equally as evil. Thoughts on this?
One aspect of this poem that I found interesting (as it relates to feminine monstrosity) is that the females in the story act in a more masculine way. Instead of exerting their power through words or through coercion of their husbands, women in the story actually use physical strength and weapons. I think if we compare the females from Shakespeare's plays (like King Lear) to those from Beowulf, this is one noteworthy difference. The poet of Beowulf depicts (some) women as evil, yes, but in a more literal, physical way.
Comments? Other ideas?
The idea of feminine monstrosity is one that is crucial to the story of Beowulf. One article I read discussed the monstrous nature of both Grendel's mother and Thryth. The difference between the two, it seems, is that Thryth, due to her social status as the daughter of a king, is able to function within society. Despite her evil nature and cruel actions, she is never outright condemned as a monster by the poet. Additionally, after her marriage, she becomes less evil. Is this a commentary on how men "tame" women once they're married?
Grendel's mother, however, is held as one of literature's greatest examples of feminine monstrosity. Described as greedy, grim-minded, an a monster woman, her entrance to Heorot strikes even more terror into the hearts of the men present than does Grendel's entrance. Another article I read, however, proposed the idea that Grendel's mother has received unfair treatment amongst literary scholars; some believe that readers are predisposed to read Grendel's mother as being monstrous due to all of the hoopla surrounding her character. This theory contrasts sharply the fact that the poet depicts, and most readers perceive, Grendel's mother as a horrible, grotesque monster, but does not do so with Grendel, who, in actuality, is equally as evil. Thoughts on this?
One aspect of this poem that I found interesting (as it relates to feminine monstrosity) is that the females in the story act in a more masculine way. Instead of exerting their power through words or through coercion of their husbands, women in the story actually use physical strength and weapons. I think if we compare the females from Shakespeare's plays (like King Lear) to those from Beowulf, this is one noteworthy difference. The poet of Beowulf depicts (some) women as evil, yes, but in a more literal, physical way.
Comments? Other ideas?
Monday, October 1, 2007
Monthly Poll Results (October)
To conserve space on the main page of the blog, I'm deleting old polls and putting the results here.
Feel free to comment.
Poll 1. Basically, an Overwhelming majority of you felt I am a genius. :)
Poll 2. Should Danielle be allowed to blog/comment?
yes | 0 (0%) |
no | 6 (100%) |
Poll 3. Laz's name?
Unanimously decided to be "Courage Destroyer" ? whatever it was.
Important Values in Beowulf
On Friday, Laz made a mention (actually, correcting me) about how values and acceptable actions have changed over the course of the human era. Since we're just beginning to dicuss Beowulf, I thought this might be a good place to start the dicussion. What values were more or less important to the charactors in Beowulf? Were they any different from the author's values? I think that in order to really evaluate Beowulf as a charactor, and the "morals" of the story, we have to be able to see things from the intended audience's point of view- see what their culture values, etc.
Obviously, strengh and the abilty to fight is extremely well valued. Loyalty, too, is important to Beowulf, Hrothanger, and the other charactors. My question really lies in isolationism. Is the ability to fight by yourself a good thing, or a bad thing? Beowulf becomes the protector of his people, but when he dies, he leaves them with (almost) no one to help them. They became dependent on him because he was powerful by himself. I guess it could be said that Wiglaf will take over after Beowulf's death, but the lamenting, mourning, and foreshadowing seem to prove that bad things will happen soon.
Something interesting to me is the value of death. Death seems to be a less emotional thing in this culture than many others. The idea of mourning is not as important as action and revenge. Early on in the story, Hrothanger dicusses how he paid a death-price for Beowulf's father to let him be accepted back to the Geats. It seems like killing someone is valued as bad in the monetary sense- like stealing something is in our culture. Once you pay back what's owed (monetarily), you're free of charge. Death seems to be less personal.
Similarly, Grendal's mother's attack seems to be justified in the eyes of the author- because she is avenging her son. The idea of revenge seems to be less emotional and more about simple, blood payback. Death is valued differently.
Of course there's a lot of other ideas and value's I'm not mentioning right now. Comments or more/better ideas?
Obviously, strengh and the abilty to fight is extremely well valued. Loyalty, too, is important to Beowulf, Hrothanger, and the other charactors. My question really lies in isolationism. Is the ability to fight by yourself a good thing, or a bad thing? Beowulf becomes the protector of his people, but when he dies, he leaves them with (almost) no one to help them. They became dependent on him because he was powerful by himself. I guess it could be said that Wiglaf will take over after Beowulf's death, but the lamenting, mourning, and foreshadowing seem to prove that bad things will happen soon.
Something interesting to me is the value of death. Death seems to be a less emotional thing in this culture than many others. The idea of mourning is not as important as action and revenge. Early on in the story, Hrothanger dicusses how he paid a death-price for Beowulf's father to let him be accepted back to the Geats. It seems like killing someone is valued as bad in the monetary sense- like stealing something is in our culture. Once you pay back what's owed (monetarily), you're free of charge. Death seems to be less personal.
Similarly, Grendal's mother's attack seems to be justified in the eyes of the author- because she is avenging her son. The idea of revenge seems to be less emotional and more about simple, blood payback. Death is valued differently.
Of course there's a lot of other ideas and value's I'm not mentioning right now. Comments or more/better ideas?
Lazarow's name
Alright, we hereby gather on the first day of October in order to democratically choose the old english name of our English teacher, Mr. Lazarow.
I shall nominate the name:
Grimmwulf
Dreadful Wolf
He strikes fear into the hearts of many, yet displays a cunning unlike any other.
Any other nominations?
I'll see if I can set up a poll later tonight a la Dan Kim. Nominations shall close at 10 pm est.
-Albert
Trumferth
Sound Mind
I shall nominate the name:
Grimmwulf
Dreadful Wolf
He strikes fear into the hearts of many, yet displays a cunning unlike any other.
Any other nominations?
I'll see if I can set up a poll later tonight a la Dan Kim. Nominations shall close at 10 pm est.
-Albert
Trumferth
Sound Mind
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Mythical Heroic Archetypes...
We've just started digging into heroic mythical archetypes, so I'm not sure if there is a lot to post about it yet. Either way, I wanted to set up a place for our examples of mythical heroic archetypes that we see in the literature we read.
The first books that came to my mind, aside from Harry Potter, were a series by Tamora Pierce. She writes middle-school aged books about an ancient, magical kingdom with monsters, castles, knights... the whole shabang. In particular, I was thinking about the Protector of the Small series. In these books, Kel is the main charactor. She's girl trying to be a knight in an entirely male-dominated society. She's the first girl to openly try for knightship in over a thousand years. This makes her an outcase within her community. She also has a somewhat obsucre and mysterious past because she and her family recently moved from another country. Laz also made the point that the hero or heroine must be removed from the life they knew (the threshold guardian). In the first book, Kel is unsure whether or not she wants to try out for knighthood. Later on in the week, Kel is attacked by a bunch of deadly immortals while she is walking near her home. She is unable to defend herself for long, and her brother saves her. This attack sealed her decision to try for her knighthood and learn to defend herself and others. She no longer feels protected because she knows she can't defend herself. This is a break away from the life she knew. In terms of the second point Laz made (Hero not invincible, but not a fool), Kel's charactor applies as well. She's quick on her feet and has common sense, but she has physical limitations because she is a girl (less muscle power). She also has a severe fear of heights, which becomes a challenge she has to face towards the end of the series. All of the heroic archetype points fit into this novel, but I also think I picked an easy example. These books are openly about knights, shining armor, winning love, fighting dragons. An interesting example would be one which isn't so obvious.
Comments? Other examples?
The first books that came to my mind, aside from Harry Potter, were a series by Tamora Pierce. She writes middle-school aged books about an ancient, magical kingdom with monsters, castles, knights... the whole shabang. In particular, I was thinking about the Protector of the Small series. In these books, Kel is the main charactor. She's girl trying to be a knight in an entirely male-dominated society. She's the first girl to openly try for knightship in over a thousand years. This makes her an outcase within her community. She also has a somewhat obsucre and mysterious past because she and her family recently moved from another country. Laz also made the point that the hero or heroine must be removed from the life they knew (the threshold guardian). In the first book, Kel is unsure whether or not she wants to try out for knighthood. Later on in the week, Kel is attacked by a bunch of deadly immortals while she is walking near her home. She is unable to defend herself for long, and her brother saves her. This attack sealed her decision to try for her knighthood and learn to defend herself and others. She no longer feels protected because she knows she can't defend herself. This is a break away from the life she knew. In terms of the second point Laz made (Hero not invincible, but not a fool), Kel's charactor applies as well. She's quick on her feet and has common sense, but she has physical limitations because she is a girl (less muscle power). She also has a severe fear of heights, which becomes a challenge she has to face towards the end of the series. All of the heroic archetype points fit into this novel, but I also think I picked an easy example. These books are openly about knights, shining armor, winning love, fighting dragons. An interesting example would be one which isn't so obvious.
Comments? Other examples?
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Cordelia
I really liked how Rachel brought up the fact that we hadn't really focused on Cordelia's character and her significance. Laz also gave us a totally different point of view on her character to balance out her 'Christ-like' image. At first, because of the lack of speech and activity on the part of Cordelia's character, I thought her to be a really static and boring character. However, after Laz gave us that varying view to keep in mind, I changed my mind. I'm really attracted to Cordelia's character now- in a new way. Was Shakespeare trying to make a statement by keeping Cordelia's character seemingly subtle? Personally, she now attracts me more than the other characters. Maybe because we've talked about the others already. I'm really interested in seeing what kind of other things we can come up with as a group. Any ideas?
Sunday, September 23, 2007
feminism
Alrighty then
Feminism
Wanna hear a joke?
Women's rights
hahahaha......
Anyway
The term "Feminism" is way too broad. There are many schools of thought within Feminist literary theory that have evolved throughout the years.
The first one, which I find most interesting is androgyny. This theory statest that creative minds are sexless and to consider it otherwise is sexist. http://www.victorianweb.org/gender/femtheory.html
Applying this to King Lear, that means that the qualities found usually associated with the males of the play (the manipulation of Edmund, the goody goodiness of Edgar, the eccentricities of Lear) can actually be found in the women of the play. This explains why Goneril and Regan break the norms of the social order in Elizabethan times by using deception and "ends justify the means" tactics to gain power. Normally, one would consider these traits as masculine.
Androgyny also explains the femininity of the males. Lear's show of emotion in Act I is a prime example of this. Men were expected to hide their emotions and act objectively to situations. Lear does the opposite in Act I.
Question: Does feminist literary theory rely a lot on the social norms etc during the time each piece is written? That seems to be the case because views of women change a lot during each time period in history.
http://www.kristisiegel.com/theory.htm
good site that provides a brief summary and additional scholarly sites for each school of literary criticism.
Feminism
Wanna hear a joke?
Women's rights
hahahaha......
Anyway
The term "Feminism" is way too broad. There are many schools of thought within Feminist literary theory that have evolved throughout the years.
The first one, which I find most interesting is androgyny. This theory statest that creative minds are sexless and to consider it otherwise is sexist. http://www.victorianweb.org/gender/femtheory.html
Applying this to King Lear, that means that the qualities found usually associated with the males of the play (the manipulation of Edmund, the goody goodiness of Edgar, the eccentricities of Lear) can actually be found in the women of the play. This explains why Goneril and Regan break the norms of the social order in Elizabethan times by using deception and "ends justify the means" tactics to gain power. Normally, one would consider these traits as masculine.
Androgyny also explains the femininity of the males. Lear's show of emotion in Act I is a prime example of this. Men were expected to hide their emotions and act objectively to situations. Lear does the opposite in Act I.
Question: Does feminist literary theory rely a lot on the social norms etc during the time each piece is written? That seems to be the case because views of women change a lot during each time period in history.
http://www.kristisiegel.com/theory.htm
good site that provides a brief summary and additional scholarly sites for each school of literary criticism.
Friday, September 21, 2007
King Lear Movie
Would anyone else be interested in taking Laz's suggestion to see the Akira Kurasawa version of King Lear? If a lot of people (relatively speaking) were interested, we could find a convinient date, maybe sometime next weekend? And because I enjoy eating, and I don't really know much else about Japanese culture, I would highly suggest we include sushi. :)
Anyone interested?
Anyone interested?
Thursday, September 20, 2007
crash course into marxism
http://www.assumption.edu/users/ady/HHGateway/Gateway/Marxistlitcrit.html
Provides a pretty good outline as to what marxism is all about in terms of literary theory/criticism.
The idea that I find most troubling is that Marxists try to see what is not there. I'm starting to understand what Laz was telling us in class though. If you try to look from the outside in, you'll just get confused. :P
Provides a pretty good outline as to what marxism is all about in terms of literary theory/criticism.
The idea that I find most troubling is that Marxists try to see what is not there. I'm starting to understand what Laz was telling us in class though. If you try to look from the outside in, you'll just get confused. :P
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Id vs. Ego
I didn't get a chance to bring this up in class today so I thought I would post on the blog now... Shakespeare seems to deal with the struggle between the Id and the Ego throughout this play.
Through psychoanalysis, Lear and Gloucester's insanity can be view as a battle of the Id and the Ego, with the Superego caught in between. Both men act rashly -- Lear quickly dismisses Cordelia and Kent without considering the ramifications his actions and Gloucester believes Edmund without listening to Edgar's side of the story. Their irrational behavior is a result of the Id overpowering the Superego to manifest itself. Because of this behavior, both men sink into insanity -- the Id has completely taken over which results in their primal behavior. However, the Ego is still there -- Lear and Gloucester both realize their faults and try to rise out of madness. By learning where they went wrong and trying to rectify their mistakes, Lear and Gloucester's sense of self returns. The Superego is then able take back control and sanity is restored.
Albany also struggles with his Id and Ego. During the first few scenes, Albany wavers over whether or not he should support Goneril, Regan, and Edmund. When in the presence of these characters, Albany is influenced to "lower his waterline," as Laz would say, and to allow his more barbaric feelings to manifest themselves. However, due to his Superego, Albany feels that he should suppress these feelings. Eventually, Albany realizes that the right thing for him to do is to support Lear and his Ego is triumphant.
Disagree? Agree? Anything else anyone wants to add?
Through psychoanalysis, Lear and Gloucester's insanity can be view as a battle of the Id and the Ego, with the Superego caught in between. Both men act rashly -- Lear quickly dismisses Cordelia and Kent without considering the ramifications his actions and Gloucester believes Edmund without listening to Edgar's side of the story. Their irrational behavior is a result of the Id overpowering the Superego to manifest itself. Because of this behavior, both men sink into insanity -- the Id has completely taken over which results in their primal behavior. However, the Ego is still there -- Lear and Gloucester both realize their faults and try to rise out of madness. By learning where they went wrong and trying to rectify their mistakes, Lear and Gloucester's sense of self returns. The Superego is then able take back control and sanity is restored.
Albany also struggles with his Id and Ego. During the first few scenes, Albany wavers over whether or not he should support Goneril, Regan, and Edmund. When in the presence of these characters, Albany is influenced to "lower his waterline," as Laz would say, and to allow his more barbaric feelings to manifest themselves. However, due to his Superego, Albany feels that he should suppress these feelings. Eventually, Albany realizes that the right thing for him to do is to support Lear and his Ego is triumphant.
Disagree? Agree? Anything else anyone wants to add?
Monday, September 17, 2007
Social order in King Lear
Social order seems to be the biggest theme present in King Lear. It is the one theme whereby most of the other major themes stem off of. The father-daughter relationship where the daughter's father is also her lord and king. The king-fool relationship that reverses any conventional preconceptions about a fool's role in a king's court. And there are probably a bunch others that I've forgotten. In any case, this social heirarchy is both critiqued (as Fatima proposed in class) and praised. Here's my take:
In the relationship between King Lear and his three daughters, he treats his daughters as if they were loyal servants, not his own flesh and blood. In the first scene, Goneril and Regan states their love (more like allegiance) for their father, not unlike when a knight pledges to protect his king. Cordelia, the seemingly only sane person in the whole play, states that her love only goes so far as it should from daughter to father. She criticized her sisters' confessions for professing more love to their father than to their respective husbands. This is where the critique of the social order comes in. King Lear confused the roles his daughters played in his court. Breaking up his kingdom and selling it to the highest "bidder" completely breaks down the familial relationships between the members of his family. Instead of unconditionally giving his daughters each a dowery, he makes it into a contest which breeds jealousy and unneeded competition. (but i'm no psychologist)
The praise comes when you see the good people step up. As Lazarow said in class, there's the hope in a monarchy whenever there's a change in power. Tyranny gives way to justice and a peaceful time can begin.
Agreements? Disagreements?
And can anyone give any primers on literary analysis?
In the relationship between King Lear and his three daughters, he treats his daughters as if they were loyal servants, not his own flesh and blood. In the first scene, Goneril and Regan states their love (more like allegiance) for their father, not unlike when a knight pledges to protect his king. Cordelia, the seemingly only sane person in the whole play, states that her love only goes so far as it should from daughter to father. She criticized her sisters' confessions for professing more love to their father than to their respective husbands. This is where the critique of the social order comes in. King Lear confused the roles his daughters played in his court. Breaking up his kingdom and selling it to the highest "bidder" completely breaks down the familial relationships between the members of his family. Instead of unconditionally giving his daughters each a dowery, he makes it into a contest which breeds jealousy and unneeded competition. (but i'm no psychologist)
The praise comes when you see the good people step up. As Lazarow said in class, there's the hope in a monarchy whenever there's a change in power. Tyranny gives way to justice and a peaceful time can begin.
Agreements? Disagreements?
And can anyone give any primers on literary analysis?
Monday, September 10, 2007
Welcome to the 2007 MHS AP English 4 Blog!
Welcome, AP English Literature scholars of MHS Class of '08! It's a great pleasure to welcome you to your home on the web--your class blogsite.
Ever since we first began using online bulletin boards as a way to converse about literature and writing (all the way back in the early '90's, and please don't feel the need to comment about how long ago that was, or how old you were then), it was always my intent to do the same in my classroom. Admittedly, it took a little longer than I thought, but here we are.
I have put this space together for the benefit of your academic pursuit--to expand your ability to converse about the texts we will be discussing. This space is essentially yours to post relevant--and presumably intelligent--comments and questions regarding our readings. At the moment, that would consist of Shakespeare's work King Lear, and the concepts we will soon discuss on the topic of critical literary theory. No doubt you have many questions to pose.
Please note the following rules:
1. ONLY students enrolled in MHS AP English IV may post comments here. This is not a discussion board intended for the world.
2. Anyone who posts must do so with their REAL first name. Any posts found to be made using names other than real (for example, posting using another student's name) will be dealt with according to school disciplinary policy.
3. All discussion will proceed in respectful, scholarly manner.
4. To ensure that #3 is obeyed, I will personally monitor all discussions on this blog. It's not that I don't trust teenagers to behave in responsible ways. . .oh, wait--yes, it is. I don't. Don't take it personally.
5. Do not expect me to comment on every posting, even if a question has been directly asked of me by one of you. I am much more interested to see whether your fellow scholars are capable of suggesting viable answers and explanations. I reserve the right to comment when and if I deem it necessary. Frequently, I will allow a discussion thread to continue unabated, in order to bring that thread into class for further investigation.
6. From time to time, if the mood strikes me, I may make a comment or pose a question, or refer you to some additional reading I've discovered. Just because I've done that does not make you obligated to respond. . .at least, not yet.
7. Just in case you haven't been told this yet--or you have, but forgot--please remember: this course is designed in every respect as the equivalent to the entry level course of the variety required of collegiate English majors. That's right--you're taking a college-level class, a year ahead of time. Reconcile yourself to the gravity of that reality right now, and be prepared to handle the work that will reasonably emerge for you this year. Conduct yourself with that level of academic responsibility in mind.
8. Oh--and, yes, the blog will be a required element of your grade each marking period, so make it a part of your daily online ritual. Check it frequently, and post or comment consistently. The concept of "participation" is now no longer restricted to the classroom walls!
That's all I can think of at the moment, but I also reserve the right to change/adjust/modify/ invent as we go along. Because I can, that's why.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts, and seeing you all in in class to continue these discussions face-to-face.
MR. LAZ
Ever since we first began using online bulletin boards as a way to converse about literature and writing (all the way back in the early '90's, and please don't feel the need to comment about how long ago that was, or how old you were then), it was always my intent to do the same in my classroom. Admittedly, it took a little longer than I thought, but here we are.
I have put this space together for the benefit of your academic pursuit--to expand your ability to converse about the texts we will be discussing. This space is essentially yours to post relevant--and presumably intelligent--comments and questions regarding our readings. At the moment, that would consist of Shakespeare's work King Lear, and the concepts we will soon discuss on the topic of critical literary theory. No doubt you have many questions to pose.
Please note the following rules:
1. ONLY students enrolled in MHS AP English IV may post comments here. This is not a discussion board intended for the world.
2. Anyone who posts must do so with their REAL first name. Any posts found to be made using names other than real (for example, posting using another student's name) will be dealt with according to school disciplinary policy.
3. All discussion will proceed in respectful, scholarly manner.
4. To ensure that #3 is obeyed, I will personally monitor all discussions on this blog. It's not that I don't trust teenagers to behave in responsible ways. . .oh, wait--yes, it is. I don't. Don't take it personally.
5. Do not expect me to comment on every posting, even if a question has been directly asked of me by one of you. I am much more interested to see whether your fellow scholars are capable of suggesting viable answers and explanations. I reserve the right to comment when and if I deem it necessary. Frequently, I will allow a discussion thread to continue unabated, in order to bring that thread into class for further investigation.
6. From time to time, if the mood strikes me, I may make a comment or pose a question, or refer you to some additional reading I've discovered. Just because I've done that does not make you obligated to respond. . .at least, not yet.
7. Just in case you haven't been told this yet--or you have, but forgot--please remember: this course is designed in every respect as the equivalent to the entry level course of the variety required of collegiate English majors. That's right--you're taking a college-level class, a year ahead of time. Reconcile yourself to the gravity of that reality right now, and be prepared to handle the work that will reasonably emerge for you this year. Conduct yourself with that level of academic responsibility in mind.
8. Oh--and, yes, the blog will be a required element of your grade each marking period, so make it a part of your daily online ritual. Check it frequently, and post or comment consistently. The concept of "participation" is now no longer restricted to the classroom walls!
That's all I can think of at the moment, but I also reserve the right to change/adjust/modify/ invent as we go along. Because I can, that's why.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts, and seeing you all in in class to continue these discussions face-to-face.
MR. LAZ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)