British Lit, etc.

So what do we do with the complexities? As we discussed in class, satire is a touchy subject, given to numerous accounts of readings and even misreadings. Satire is at the heart of literary analysis. How much do we credit authorial intent? How do we anaylize the criticism. A microcosm of such an argument is found in “The Lady’s Dressing Room”.

The poem is acting on several accounts. By using Bakhtin’s theory of heteroglossia and multiple perspectives we can reach a deeper understanding of the satire being used in Swift’s poem. And from these multiple perspectives we can garner that there are multiple levels to interpret and read the satire in “the Dressing Room”. One way to read the satire is in Celia herself, another is Strephon and a third is not necessarily Swift himself, but the reader of the poem.

Celia’s satire is the most obvious level. The amount of items she has, the filth and ruddy language that Swift writes with to describe her room and her being is disturbing. The satire is that maybe women should be neater, cleanlier, etc. However, this satire literally seems to be skin deep, and it is precisely the aesthetical surface of Strephon’s feelings that proves a deeper level of satire is on Strephon himself.

The fact that Strephon even feels this way is a commentary on the feelings of men, of the fact that beauty can be ugly, that the fantasies of women are never nice and neat like they are thought out to be. Strephon’s disgust and the consequence of his actions being, “His foul Imagination links/ Each dame he see with all her stinks” is a sad hyperbole that packs a punch.

Thirdly, and most interesting, is the satire on the reader or on Swift himself. Satire can be straightforward at times, but when the author takes the mirror that is reflecting society and turns it on himself, things quickly intertwine and thicken. What was one a night, neat package of social commentary is now juxtaposed with the personal feelings of the author. Swift seems to ask himself- through the narrative of the poem- whether he is completely innocent of not doing this himself. And at that point, the reader themselves must ask the same question. It is herteroglossia at its finest. The final perspective is of the reader him or herself. Can we see the satire from not just Celia or not just Strephon’s points of view but from the three or more combined?

My argument, is that by doing so, by looking at it from all these angles, all these perspectives we come to the true power of Satire– which Swift perfects in his part IV of Gulliver’s Travels…

Paradise Lost, and The Bible, for that sake is a book of exile. It is a book, that even the title makes sure to make clear, is one of Loss. Of having something and then having it taken away or never found again. As we see in Book I, that loss is for Satan–as I blogged about earlier.

As most know- the final and maybe most telling and poignant tale of loss is the one of Adam and Even. This picture that I happened upon and one that is a clear example of the tale Paradise Lost has hit me like a bag of oranges. I have not read ahead and know not or how Milton will retell the tale but I think it is poignant to read the story knowing the eventual outcome of God’s creation. The eventual outcome of Man, and to focus on a central theme that Milton obviously wants the reader to recognize.

Paradise Lost. The greatest work of literature by an englishman. I have heard all about it since high school and this is my first sit down with it, and it is only now beginning to dawn on the me the sheer magnitude and weight of the work. Dr. C made sure we understand the complexity of the work, but I didn’t get the true sense of that until now. Granted we are only reading excerpts from the whole work–I can only imagine what I would find or ponder over if I were to read the whole thing, which I plan on doing anyways….

The part that I am focusing on for this particular blog is the end of Book I. When Satan is, “thrown by angry Jove/ Sheer o’er the crystal battlements: from morn/ To noon he fell, from noon to dewy eve,/ A summer’s day; and with the setting sun/Dropped from the zenith like a falling star” (741-745).

One of the most impacting elements of Dr. C’s lecture that has stuck with me are the intense duplicities, the hard shades of gray, the sympathetic evil characters and the morally and intrinsically hard to sympathize with good characters. I can’t help but feel a certain type of sympathy for Satan’s fall from heaven. Maybe it is my undeniably ignorant misconceptions of Christianities main topic of forgiveness, or maybe it is simply just Milton’s language–Milton’s idea of what makes a man? What makes a man evil or good? And can one be truly pure evil or pure good without a little of the other in them? These are the points that just a few lines of Paradise Lost bring to me.

And contrary to Satan–the one being ejected from Heaven, we have Jove or God.  And not just good ol bearded Jove but Angry Jove.  In our day we have become complacent in our Christian Views.  That Christianity is a nice, sin-forgiving, love thy neighbor religion; however, in the Old Testament, in the time of Jove–God would reign supreme.  He rained down fire and brimstone.  And so how do we negotiate an Angry God.  This passage at an isolated looking makes Jove out to be the evil one and Satan the sympathetic one.

It goes without saying that The Faerie Queen is riddled with Christian doctrines, dogmas, conventions and rebellions. From the second stanza of Canto I of Book I the image of a bloody cross haunts the reader throughout the poem. This image is just the beginning of a collection of stark, ruthless Christian symbols. The idea of the Redcrosse Knight as a whole is a symbol in itself- Redcrosse (red cross) symbolizing the bloody crucifixion as well as the symbol for England as a Nation!

The whole epic poem can be read as an allegory between the battle of Satan versus God- Evil versus Good. The idea of a dragon, a fire breathing monster, can loosely be associated with Satan- hell, fire, abyss, etc. So it is not a far-fetched comparison to associate the evil of the poem, the dragon, and the battle that will solidify George as a hero and Knight with a victory as conquering over Evil. So in Canto XI when the Knight and the Dragon fight, “two dayes incessantly: The third him overthrowes” one can not overlook the significance of the three: the holy trinity, the divine number.

Since my first days at Church and my first classes of Sunday School, I have been aware of temptation being the tool of the devil. Starting with the apple in Eden and continuing throughout biblical lore, temptation is the root of all evil. The Faerie Queen takes up the idea of temptation, and more so, the resistance of the tempting in many forms, but most notably, sexually.

To connect the sexual temptations of The Faerie Queen to the last Arthurian Knight we have read, Gawain, is incredibly interesting. Where the Redcrosse Knight withholds and says nay, Gawain literally jumped right in. The two stories create an interesting parallel; however, The Faerie Queen is much darker throughout and brings to light many questions of faith, love, chivalry, honor, and on and on.

When Archimago comes to the Knight in his dream as a willing Una, it is as though a dream has literally come true. And yet Spenser shows us the inner struggles and double standards that go through the mind of the Knight. He obviously yearns and desires this dream of being with Una, and yet something, in the end, holds him back. What was once lust turns into anger at her wantonness.

Spenser plays with temptation throughout Canto 1 of the Faerie Queen and I get a feeling like he is not going to stop there…

What a play.  Full of long speeches and all sorts of conspiring, The Tragedy of Mariam is truly one of the most difficult plays I have ever dealt with.  From the get go it was made clear that this is a play that was most likely meant to be read instead of seen, which may or may not have something to do with the painstaking hardships it took to sometimes get through one dramatic monologue after another.  But yesterday’s lecture shed light on a few major themes in the play yet it still left a few elements shadowed.

The whole of the play is centered around Herod.  Is he dead? Alive? when would he come back, etc.  Once he enters in Act IV, it becomes clear that he is truly an important person.  A juxtaposition is set up between him and Mariam as well.  One is happy and jovial, the other is wearing black and morose.  One is a man, one is a woman- and yet this is where we see some interchanging.  It was brought up in class that both characters act more like the other gender.  Mariam, a woman with rather masculine personality traits and Herod a man with rather womanly personality traits.  I would have to say that Mariam exhibits more of the masculine qualities than Herod the feminine, and it was suggested that this may be Mariam’s downfall.

So what do we make of this outcome when the writer of the play is female as well?  This is, to me, one of the most significant themes of the play.  Many times in other lit classes we will blame, yes blame, the author for always making his women characters too masculine, and now we have a woman character from a woman author.  Might not be the most poignant of lenses to look at the play with, but may be one of the most interesting.

How mad is King Lear?  What would happen if you read King Lear assuming that he is not really mad.  Because after all, how do we define mad?  What gives someone the authority to single someone out as mad.  I will say that reading King Lear under the impression that Lear is not truly mad may give a skew reading; however, by doing so I must say that this has been the most poignant and touching reading of the semester to date.

So who is Lear?  Let’s just list out some of the titles and then go further.  He is the King of all of Britain.  He is a Father.  A Father of three daughters.  A Father who is seemingly widowed.  He is an old man.  Lear is an old widower and father of three daughters AND the King of Britain.  Sounds like he bit of a bit more than he could chew.

And yet, *alert- Rodney Dangerfield moment-*,  where is the Respect!? Here is a man who has had a relatively peaceful and good reign as King, due to context clues, and yet his daughters, minus Cordelia, are conspiring to kill him.

In Act III, we see Lear break down.  In an earlier post I show his scene of clarity and recognition to his downfalls as King when seeing the peasants.  However, in ACT IV, the true theme of Lear is shown.  Lear, and not just Lear, but Man facing his own Mortality.  Lear works on so many levels it is difficult to weave them all together, but here is a small scale attempt:

When Gloucester casts himself from his imagined to be Cliffs of Dover in attempt to end his life, he lays on the ground and Lear enters.  Gloucester, who parallels with Lear as a character, is himself an old man betrayed by a child who now lies in the muck of despair.  Gloucester feels his mortality.  He faces his own death and willing moves to it because he is a broken, blinded man, with seemingly nothing left to live for.  But, again, here comes Lear, “fantastically dressed with wild flowers”.

Lear is in denial, “No, they cannot touch me for coining; I am the king himself”.  Lear has an intense pride.  One can see this from the beginning of the play.  Yet, during the storm he has a moment of clarity.  But again, as I am sure I will feel, and any Man may feel: in denial- of growing old, of death.  Lear is beginning to realize, even his reign means nothing.  And even if he, himself, does not realize this- the audience does, “When the rain came to wet me once, and the wind to make me chatter when the thunder would not peace at my bidding…They told me I was everything, ‘Tis a lie, I am not ague-proof”.  Lear sees that he no longer has power.  He doesn’t have power over the Wind, the Rain- of Nature.  And Nature’s ultimate path: the road that always ends in death; it is the Lion King moment: the Circle of Life.

I will end on this train of thought, because this blog is becoming long, and I can only hope that this is the clear and hopefully powerful message that I think it is.

The Groundlings.  Has anyone else thought of them while reading this play?   This would blow their mind.  Imagine them being in a moment of drunken clarity, watching this play.  Here they are, peasants, poor alike and they are watching a King.  A KING. They would probably kill their sister, mother, and wife to be Royalty that just touches a King.  And now they are watching a play of a King, whose family is out to kill him, who realizes, that all the glory and grandeur of being a King is for naught.  For Nothing.  Lear is going to die, alone, and unloved.  I can’t help but feel that this is a mighty, MIGHTY powerful message.  The groundlings, myself included now amongst them, must have felt for at least a moment: maybe I don’t have it so bad.  Shakespeare makes a King, a man.  He makes him someone we can identify with, a father, a widower, a broken person, an old, dying man.  I just can’t get over the intensity, the power of this message, of this theme, of Lear.

“When we are born, we cry that we are come To this great stage of fools.  This’ a good block”

While in the midst of reading Act III, I was struck by a few things.  The first was the breakdown and recognition that Lear goes through in Scene IV, “Filial ingratitude! Is it not as this mouth should tear this hand For lifting food to ‘t?”.  In other words, my damn daughters are biting the hand that fed them.  They definitely do not love their father or treat him according to the “bond” that Cordelia speaks of.  This bond: honor thy father and mother, is a rather simple and yet, as any child knows, can be a challenge.  This idea that Regan and Goneril do not love him according to the filial love that Lear is due gives even more power and poignancy to Cordelia’s seemingly simple and matter of fact answer in Act I Scene I.

But back to the point at hand.  Lear’s breakdown and recognition of his two daughter’s evil plots is the most humane and insight into Lear as a person that we have seen so far in the play.  “O Regan, Goneril! Your old kind father, whose frank heart gave all- O, that way madness lies”.  He professes he has done all he can do.  On top of running a nation- to be a good father too, must be a nearly impossible task.  Just a few lines down form this passage Lear looks does look back on his reign as King and laments,

“Poor naked wretches, whereso’er you are, That bide the pelting of this pitiless storm, How shall your houseless heads and unfed sides, Your looped and windowed raggedness, defend you From seasons such as these? O, I have ta’en Too little care of this!“

Lear’s lamenting on not just his family faults but his inability to take care of the poor in his own country is a powerful and weighty scene in the play.  Lear, is seemingly, coming face to face, literally and figuratively, with all of his downfalls.

What to do with Edmund?

From his entrance and his first lines there is a troubling anger inside of Edmund.  He goes on a series of questions, of rhetorical unfairnesses that revolve around the concepts of baseness and his identity of being a bastard child.  His plot to kill off his (half)brother and and gain being the heir to Gloucester’s, his father, reign is a sadistic and maniacal ploy.

So again, what are we to make of Edmund?

Him and Edgar and Gloucester are the father and sons to the father and daughters of Lear and Goneril, Regan, and Cordelia.  Edmund is ruthless from the beginning, unlike Regan and Goneril who are seemingly not what they seem.  However, an interesting comparison between Edmund and Regan and Goneril are that they all compose themselves around their fathers.  They are all facades within facades.  They know how to play the “game of thrones”.

So, what to do with old Bill?

greatest, most famous playwright ever? probably.

Easiest to understand? not exactly.

On our beginning of the Shakespearean drama I would like to start at the beginning and base for my knowledge on the man, the myth, the legend- William Shakespeare.   And that knowledge does not spread to far.  I’ve read Julius Caesar, Macbeth, and of course, the sonnets we have done in class.  Also, last year, when i started my first practicum, i had to read A Midsummer Night’s Dream and teach a lesson on it.  Teaching the lesson- spending the time and putting the effort into it made me realize the complexities, and yet, rather simple and timeless themes that Shakespeare deals with.  I began to notice his use of myth and legend, like Pyramus and Thisbe in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and how he uses these stories and there themes in his own works.

The lecture today in class, Prf. Mathur, brought up a fascinating point: that Shakespeare also likes to put different classes next to one another and see what happens.  His plays are funny- not necessarily in the slap-stick manner- but in the wit and puns.  Shakespeare seems to love to play language- to try to pool the wool over our eyes.   So in starting Twelfth Night, I am on the lookout for all of these elements that I already know of Shakespeare- and in just the first two acts alone- it is riddled with them all.

I do find it hard to keep up with all the characters.  The coming and going and the many that he introduces at once can be a little trying at times- it is close to The Wire (on HBO) which will introduce characters from the middle.  Meaning- they don’t go: “and here is so and so doing so and so and he was born and raised here and there” but instead Shakespeare, like The Wire, introduce you to the actors in the middle of something- in the middle of their lives.  And it is up to us, the audience, to be on our toes- or on our mind- to pay attention, and remember the little details.