@Austen

1:07 PM November 27, 2010
@JML: Ha! I know one thing that Elizabeth does not. Darcy loves her still, but she doubts it so bad. Tennis was great, hit 17 aces. Now, back to reading Austen. And finish it, hopefully.

9:51 AM November 27, 2010
@JML: They are clearly changing roles. I mean, Darcy and Elizabeth. Now, her feeling towards him are those that used to be his towards her. Chat later. I’m going to hit some balls. Tennis, I mean.

6:17 PM November 26, 2010
@JML: Short notice. Elizabeth looks like she gave lessons to girls of CNG to how to act with a man that is in love with you. They are identical! First, she scorned Darcy, then she rejected his marriage proposal, and now, SHE IS MARRYING HIM! Wow. Ms. Austen, what’s next?

8:47 AM November 25, 2010
@JML: I’m in a hurry. But just before I leave for the weekend I wanted to make a point. Elizabeth said that Mr.Darcy was “exactly the man, who, in disposition and talents, would most suit her” (Austen 237). Ironic huh? Chat later.

Portraying, Not Embracing, Seems not Seems

So, now that I’ve got time, let me tell you what I’m planning to write about.

• The book got my attention a couple of times, but nothing special compared to my favorites: Hamlet and Slaughterhouse-Five.
• Anyways, if I could choose one thing to write about, it would be, certainly, the dichotomy between the different personalities that people display to other people. Confusing?
• Wait. Let’s get it clear. One character, the main one, Elizabeth. Her personality displays different phases throughout the story. Her personality towards Mr. Darcy differs from her personality towards Jane, or any other character. Furthermore, she changes her attitude within minutes, to the extent that she ‘seems’ to portray a different image than the one she actually embraces.
• Another thing, her development throughout the novel highlights from the rest. Hence, making her personality the most acquiescent. The ‘seems not seems’ argument from Hamlet. The pursuit of happiness through actions that don’t characterize yourself as a being from Gatsby. Elizabeth evolves, and finally achieves her happiness. But in order to get there, she plays with her personality to the extent she becomes a different character for every character. Still confusing? Hope not.
• By the way, I haven’t finished the book. I’m still about one hundred pages to go, but be patient. Who knows, maybe next time we meet I’ll have another topic in mind. Till then. TTYL.

A Pair Of Star-Cross’d Lovers

Previously in my blog I commented about Darcy’s denial to dance with Elizabeth, by telling her: “she is tolerable; but not handsome enough to tempt me” (7). Now, I face a completely different situation, which in fact was a bit obvious since he said that phrase. Stop. What’s the phrase? Oh yes: What goes around, comes around. I guess. Or, the heart’s reasons are unknown to reason itself, or something like that. Fast forward. Darcy finally proposes to Elizabeth. Yeah, he was running late since in Austenworld, the best thing a man can do is propose. And the best thing a girl can do is, yes you got it: reject the proposal. Stop: “In vain I have struggled. It will not do. My feelings will not be repressed. You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you (Austen 142). Play. While I read Darcy’s proposal to Elizabeth a song was sounding in my head…

You know that I was hoping,
That I could leave this star-crossed world behind
But when they cut me open,
I guess I changed my mind.
…
That was the turning point…

(Spaceman, The Killers)

Nice song, by the way. Stop. Rewind… That I could leave this star-crossed world behind… Star crossed. Those words sound familiar. They are indeed familiar, I heard my head telling me. Really? From whe… Rewind. Rewind. Rewind. Gotcha: “From forth the fatal loins of these two foes, a pair of star-cross’d lovers, take their life.” Stop. Romeo and Juliet. My mind plays me games. Why would such line appear from oblivion into this Word document? Lets see. Star-cross’d lovers. Fast forward. Relationship thwarted by outside forces. Stop. The pairing of the couple is doomed from the start. Rewind. Romeo and Juliet’s love was indeed doomed since the very beginning. Then does this apply to Pride and Prejudice? Stop.

That was the turning point… To me, this is actually a turning point for many reasons. Play.

1. Darcy’s prejudice finally falls in love with Elizabeth. This instantly refers to the dichotomy dictated by the title between both terms: pride and prejudice. While Darcy’s prejudice towards Elizabeth fades, Elizabeth’s pride grows. This leads her to reject his proposal.

2. Since the beginning of the story, the reader makes note of Darcy’s relationship with Elizabeth. Their discussions sometimes foreshadow that something will happen between them in the future. This event of rejection fades the reader’s hope of seeing this “pair of star-cross’d lovers” together. Is Austen the outside force that prevents their love?

3. Upon his proposal, Elizabeth’s line of thought divides into two halves: one remembering Darcy’s arrogance, remembering her prejudice towards his snobbishness. And the other one portraying her new vision of Darcy as a man how shows some type of goodness.

Stop. Pride and prejudice. Darcy’s pride of his social class makes his love for Elizabeth impossible to express. Therefore, as long as there is pride and prejudice in the book’s society, there won’t be love. At least real love, since according to Elizabeth’s idealism, she will only marry for love. Fast forward. But even if Darcy loved Elizabeth, “he was not more eloquent on the subject of tenderness than of pride.” Making that love impossible to manifest. Rewind. Then, are they a pair of star-cross’d lovers? Stop.

Portraying A Happy Marriage

According to what I’ve just read, a man proposes to a girl like if he was picking up apples. He doesn’t think about it, or consider it. He just does it. Well, maybe I’m not qualified (yet) to comment about marriage since I’m not even close of taking that decision. But still, it’s far too comical for a man to propose to two women in less than five chapters. Yes, it’s like picking apples: ‘This apple is rotten so I’ll just go and pick up the next one until I find a good, juicy one.’ Apparently Mr. Collins proposes to Elizabeth, and just ten minutes later in my reading schedule he proposes to Charlotte. Compared to this, I see how people are couples for years, and maybe, just maybe, after three or four years they marry. In Austenworld, after ten minutes, Mr. Collins proposes twice.

This portrayal of marriage in Pride and Prejudice seems (yes seems) a bit unrealistic. Charlotte’s marriage to Mr. Collins evokes a dour component to Elizabeth’s love story. Anyways, the sequence of the story almost guarantees the reader that Elizabeth will eventually find romantic happiness. On the other hand, Charlotte’s sudden marriage shows how the book exemplifies a patriarchal, male-dominated society where unmarried women have hopeless futures. According to Austen, Charlotte “accepted solely from the pure and disinterested desire of an establishment” (97). This illustrates Charlotte as this hopeless woman, who marries for money, contrasted to Elizabeth’s idealism. She (Elizabeth) demonstrates her pride by not marrying a fool like Mr. Collins, or a snob like Mr. Darcy. Hence, establishing the dichotomy between idealistic and pragmatic women: those who marry for love, and those who marry for money.

Once Again, Satire

Two more characters Mr.Collins and Wickham. These two bring a different air in Austen’s novel. The former is completely different with the other characters, and the latter is wicked, just as the name implies. Let’s do them one by one. Mr. Collins juxtaposes every single aspect of Austen’s technique so far. By speaking in long and irrational speeches, the character makes him a target of parody, or satire, in other words. For example, upon the appearance of Mr. Collins, the narrator describes him closely, with the use of much descriptive language: “He was a tall, heavy looking young man of five and twenty. His air was grave and stately, and his manner were very formal” (Austen 48). This, hence, contrasts with Austen’s modus operandi of describing the characters through dialogue. Maybe by describing him this way might open the doors to heavier, and more comical, satire.

Besides parodying law (which forces Mr.Bennet to leave all his property to this man instead of his daughters), Austen illustrates Mr.Collins in such way in order to augment her satire upon snobbery. Even though he is not snobbish by nature, like Miss Bingley, he is snobbish due to his labor. He is a man who portrays classism, and in the long run, adopts an image of absurdity, as he strongly believes in his importance due to his patroness is from the nobility. As a result, the reader can only connect Mr.Collins with absurdity, and agree with Mr. Bennet that “his cousin was as absurd” as he had hoped.

On the other hand, the absurdity portrayed by Mr.Collins juxtaposes Wickham’s seemingly charming personality. Austen’s tone employed in his description completely contrasts with the one employed in Mr.Collins’ description: “His appearance was greatly in his favour; he had all the best part of beauty, a fine countenance, a good figure, and very pleasing address” (Austen 54). His superficial appeal might indicate that his inner personality is quite mysterious. And even if he is able to charm Elizabeth, he causes certain distrust in Darcy. With the appearance of Wickham, the novel enhances the main terms implied by the title: pride and prejudice. On one side, we have Darcy, whose pride is evident. And on the other side, we have Elizabeth, whose blind trust in Wickham’s stories shows her prejudice in the novel. This juxtaposition between the effects of the characters in the novels, will, little by little, illustrate the meaning of the superficially simple title: Pride and Prejudice.

Love Anagnorisis

From: Fitzwilliam Darcy (fwdarcy@gmail.com)
Status: Opened
Subject: Help!

Hey man,
How are things going? Didn’t heard back from you after you told me you where starting Hamlet. How was it? Anyways, I’m writing you to tell you something quite odd. Remember Elizabeth? The girl I told you was attractive but so poor it was impossible to have a shot with her? Well, I think I may be falling for her, man. I don’t know, I think I love her. I just realized that she is the woman I want by my side. ‘[She has] been at Netherfield long enough. She attract[s] me more than [I] liked […] [I] wisely resolved to be particularly careful that no sign of admiration should now escape [me], nothing that could elevate her with the hope if influencing [my] felicity’ (44-45). In conclusion, I just realized I’m in love with her. Hope to hear from you soon!

Regards,
Darcy

El Lector Hembra

Dear blog,

This novel has too many characters thus far. About ten, more or less? Hopefully there won’t be too many more because then, I will start confounding them. Let’s see. Mr. Bingley likes Jane, Elizabeth hates Darcy, Charlotte is quite introspective with her observation about Jane, and I’m reading a chick flick. Tough bananas. Anyways, many of the aspects included within these chapters, give clues about the future of the novel. Well, I find it really hard to foreshadow what might happen if it wasn’t thanks to Austen’s deliberate clues. Thank you, Jane! Jane Austen, not Jane Bennet. As I was saying, foreshadowing happens when Charlotte tells Jane (Bennet not Austen) that “If a woman conceals her affection with the same skill from the object of it, she may lose the opportunity of fixing him; and it will then be but poor consolation to believe the world equally in the dark” (Austen 15). Will Mr. Bingley’s love for Jane fade?

Please help me. I don’t know what else to write about. I don’t like chick flicks. I want something else, something that involves deeper drama. I’ve had enough by watching chick flick movies with my girlfriends. Before, reading was my refuge from chick flicks, but now, I’m reading chick flicks! So, what can I write about? Something interesting, that reflects my understanding of the novel…

Something interesting: it’s language. Austen is able to portray an entire character without the use of many descriptive words. To my interest, the constant discussions between Darcy and Elizabeth portray this use of language. Even though the narrator never talks about their personalities, the reader knows them perfectly. For example:

“I am no longer surprised at your knowing only six accomplished women. I rather wonder now at your knowing any.”
“Are you so severe upon your own sex as to doubt the possibility of all this?”
“I never saw such a woman. I never saw such capacity, and taste, and application, and elegance, as you describe, united.” (Austen 29).

This excerpt from their dialogue reflects both characters’ personalities. It portrays Darcy as being far too demanding, while showing that he sees Elizabeth as being inferior to him. This traits that illustrate the novel’s characters, in the long run, reflect the novel’s thematic: love, social classism, and status.

Sincerely,

El Lector Hembra

Judge Them By Their Words

“I believe that the most important aspect of Pride and Prejudice is the dialogue. The first chapters are mostly dialogue, and there’s little description to each character. Therefore, we as readers perceive the character’s attitudes and personalities through their expressions rather than the narrator’s description,” said Jose Maria.

“I agree,” I said, “my first impressions of Mr. and Mrs. Bennet are caused by their dialogue. Towards the end of chapter 1, the narrator describes Mr. Bennet as being ‘so odd a mixture of quick parts, sarcastic, humour, reserve, and caprice’ (Austen 3) and Mrs. Bennet as “a woman of mean understanding, little information, and uncertain temper” (Austen 3). Those words, in fact, are just confirmations of my inferring.”

“Yes, for example, just as Darcy says ‘she is tolerable; but not handsome enough to tempt me’(Austen 7) I can picture an entire image of his personality,” Jose Maria said. “You can smell his superficial personality from those words. It’s not just a passing comment. It reflects his ‘prejudice’ towards women from lower social classes, and the rudeness present in his personality. Don’t you think so?”

“Indeed, thank you for that idea. I’m sure Mr. Tangen will like my blogs next week when he reads them,” and as I said that, we shook hands and I went back to writing my next blog entry.

Foils And Foils

With all due respect to the Spanish Department, I am about to mention a characteristic of Don Quixote in my AP English Literature blog entry. Ooh, devious. I hope they don’t read it, because then, I might be in big trouble…

Note from the Spanish Department:
Durante el transcurso del día de ayer, una fuente confiable nos informó que uno de los estudiantes del profesor Jesse Tangen-Mills violó el estatuto que separa al departamento de Literatura Hispanoamericana del departamento de Inglés. Éste utilizo referencias al texto Don Quijote de La Mancha en uno de sus trabajos para la clase de AP Literature & Composition. Esperamos que esta aberración no vuelva a repetirse.

Anyways, ouch, in Cervantes’ Don Quixote, the absentminded and unrealistic Don Quixote is contrasted with realistic Sancho Panza, without noting that the latter is fat in contrast to the prior’s thin contexture. This drastic difference between the two makes Sancho one of the most prominent foils in literature. As I write this, my memory dates me back to one of the first lessons in Pre AP ELA 9th Grade:

September 2, 2008
Topic: The Story of Him Who Knew
Aim: Who is Enkidu?
Does Gilgamesh have a foil?
WRITE NOW
Copy the following definitions
Hamartia: A tragic flaw i.e, Achilles’ heel
A negative character trait that leads to a character’s demise
Foil: Contrasts with the protagonists attributes i.e, Don Quijote’s foil is Sancho Panza.

A foil. And now I’m back from my walk down the memory lane, back to reading Hamlet, back to thinking how to make this blog entry more interesting to read. Is there anything about Hamlet that there hasn’t been said? Let’s give it a try.

I think of Fortinbras as being Hamlet’s foil. His minor role is the first difference with Hamlet, who enhances the audience into deep and long soliloquies. Fortinbras’ appearance at the end of the play is deliberate, not accidental, due to the fact he is determined to avenge his father’s slain (by King Hamlet prior to the play). Hence, Hamlet’s uncertainty and indecisiveness is clearly contrasted with Fortinbras’ impetuous action. Consequently, the appearance of Fortinbras acts as a deus ex machina due to three reasons:

1. Marcellus’ statement in Act I, scene iv: “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” (100), and the image of the Gertrude, Claudius, Laertes, and Hamlet laid dead upon the appearance of Fortinbras lead the audience to believe that Fortinbras will eventually cure Denmark’s disease.

2. Hamlet’s lines, “There’s a divinity that shapes our ends” (V,ii,11) and “the rest is silence” (V,ii,395) might refer to the ending of the play itself. The first one implying that the end of the play will be wrought by the appearance of a God-like figure (by definition, dues ex machina is “god out of a machine”), which in this case is Fortinbras. Meanwhile, the second line might refer to silence as a metaphor of peace or death, which hence alludes to the fact that Denmark will, as the epitaph says, Rest In Peace.

3. Fortinbras’ final lines, also being the play’s final lines, “Such a sight as this / Becomes the field but here shows much amiss / Go, bid the soldiers shoot” (V,ii,447-49) resemble hope in the future, contrasted by the present scene of death, which he compares to a battlefield.

Besides Fortinbras, various other characters also serve as Hamlet’s foils. And a curious coincidence is that all of them appear in the final scene: Horatio, Laertes, and Claudius. I’m not going to talk about the three, you should understand why each one serves as Hamlet’s foil. But fine, choose one, I’ll explain one for you, but later, let me finish my point. As I was saying, these foils appear altogether in the last scene. In addition to that, the main event of this last scene is what? Yes, fencing, and what do we use in fencing? Yes, foils! Wow, now I’m going to be optimistic and assume that Shakespeare did that on purpose. A paronomasia, as we might infer.

And as I promised you a foil, choose one. Horatio? Fine. Let’s see… Horatio, for example, is like Hamlet’s Sancho Panza, where his serenity and sanity is contrasted to Hamlet’s bustle and madness. Also, Horatio’s loyalty to Hamlet is clearly contrasted with Hamlet’s variable state of mind. Besides being the foil, Horatio is an interesting character if we consider one of Hamlet’s last words: “If thou didst ever hold me in thy heart, / Absent thee from felicity awhile / And in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain / To tell my story” (V,ii,381-84). Here, its quite amusing how Hamlet refers to death as “felicity”, and hence pleads Horatio to avoid suicide, or death, but instead wait to tell his story. Hamlet’s final wish makes me wonder, can Horatio be interpreted as Shakespeare? Is Shakespeare self-inserting himself in Horatio to tell the story of Hamlet?

***

Oh, one last comment. The death of all the characters, who in some way or another, played with treachery or villainy, and the survival of innocent Horatio and Fortinbras at the end of the play serves as a clear example of poetic justice: a twist of fate in the characters’ ends.

Actions Are Reflections

I was supposed to post this blog entry on Thursday. Well, I started it Thursday but I had to leave for a soccer match (which we won 4-1, by the way), and then I was simply too tired to continue. I was able to find the paper with all the notes I took while reading Freud’s and T.S Eliot’s arguments and thesis on Hamlet:

1. Inhibitory … to be limited?
2. Neurasthenia … hmm psychoanalysis I guess
3. Lull
4. Bafflement … Baffle … anger management?
5. Levity … Levitate? Fly? Hahaha

- Energy paralyzed by excessive intellectual activities (Hamlet)
- Sexual aversion (Oedipus complex) … Jocasta-Gertrude (III, iv)
- Creation … Macbeth related… Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow…
- Revenge (difficulty of assassinating monarch) Claudius? … Action/Thought
- The Spanish Tragedy … Thomas Kyd related to Hamlet, similar drama… Shakespeare revises this tragedy through Hamlet
- Disgust occasioned by mother (Gertrude)
- Hamlet is repressed
- Hamlet as a work of art
- The play is the primary problem
- Hamlet’s dreams?
- Shakespeare’s son named Hamlet

That’s it. Last week I fell in the curiosity of examining Freud’s analysis of Hamlet as character, and now I contrast it with T.S Elliot’s argument of Hamlet as the play, being the “primary problem.” Personally, I think that, even though Hamlet pilfers the play’s protagonist and the whole scenery, the play itself cannot be descended to a second plane. The play imposes the conditions in which the characters develop, taking for example Hamlet: his actions are direct and indirect results of his father’s death. Now, due to the fact I had already talked about Freud’s ideas on Hamlet in a previous blog, I will try to focus in a different aspect.

In my cellphone, saved as a memo note, I have the following lines from Macbeth:

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
(V, v, 19-28)

I remember last year we compared this soliloquy to Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene. Back then, I just did the writing assignment, in which I said, in simple terms, something like ‘this soliloquy relates to Dawkins’ theory taking into account the fact Macbeth never had children. Therefore, with the death of Lady Macbeth, his genes won’t be able to continue in the gene pool.’ Almost a year later, I fall again into this soliloquy. But in this case, T.S Eliot is enhancing the comparison: “the words of Macbeth on hearing of his wife's death strike us as if, given the sequence of events, these words were automatically released by the last event in the series. The artistic "inevitability" lies in this complete adequacy of the external to the emotion; and this is precisely what is deficient in Hamlet” (Eliot, Hamlet And His Problems). Macbeth’s words of lament not only reflect the same impotence of Hamlet as his father dies, but also illustrate Shakespeare’s consistent drama where the protagonist’s actions are reflections of a loved one’s death.

Too bad Death isn’t listed in the “Characters In The Play” page. Death acts as the protagonist in both tragedies, and is the one who creates the whole drama. That sounds too much like la Celestina, who played with the characters in the play to create the drama of the tragicomedy. Therefore, life is meaningless for both Macbeth and Hamlet. Those words just echo in my head, ‘It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.’ If death is playing with them, why bother living? They are eventually dying. But the huge difference between both is: Hamlet poses questions to death, is curious about it, and contemplates it. Meanwhile, Macbeth simply defies life’s path and pursuits death. Anyways, actions are reflections of death. The appearance of death upon the stage becomes the moment of anagnorisis of both.

Hamlet In 5 Words

Inhibitory: Psychology . to consciously or unconsciously suppress or restrain (psychologically or sociologically unacceptable behavior).

Neurasthenia: Psychiatry . (not in technical use) nervous debility and exhaustion occurring in the absence of objective causes or lesions; nervous exhaustion.

Lull: to give or lead to feel a false sense of safety; cause to be less alert, aware, or watchful.

Baffle: to frustrate or confound; thwart by creating confusion or bewilderment.

Levity: lightness of mind, character, or behavior; lack of appropriate seriousness or earnestness.

Incestuous Desires

Last night I had a dream. Wow, that sounded too much like Martin Luther King, Jr. I have a dream… I had one of those dreams that creep in our sleep from night to night, and then it fades away, and one must write it before it goes to oblivion. So now I’m here, writing words and trying to remember the details of this dream. I fell asleep while reading Hamlet’s Act III scene iv, and let me tell you that Hamlet’s details go beyond what we can touch with our fingers. Anyways, in my dream there were two people: Freud and Sophocles. Freud argued to Sophocles that Hamlet is intimately related to Oedipus, one of Sophocles most significant characters.

While they talked, there was a particular sentence that kept coming to my mind: “Let the bloat king tempt you again to bed, / Pinch wanton on your cheek, call you his mouse, / and let him, for a pair of reechy kisses / Or paddling in your neck with his damned fingers, / Make you to ravel all this matter out / That I essentially am not in madness, / But mad in craft” (III, iv, 204-210). And then, they kept talking, and talking. I could hear Freud telling Sophocles that Hamlet harbors an unconscious desire to sexually enjoy his mother. As well, that all men unconsciously desire their mothers in such way, and hence, are subject to beheld the so-called Oedipus complex. Oedipus? Oh, that explains why Sophocles is in my dream. Maybe its coherent to see Freud, due to the fact Mr. Tangen once mentioned something about Freud’s psychoanalysis being somewhat related to Hamlet, I thought. I don’t know if Freud is right, but anyways, that argument is quite astonishing. Afterwards, he came back to his main argument, saying Hamlet and Oedipus are intimately related, but while Oedipus actually performs this sexual fantasy, Hamlet deceives the unconscious desire to do so. As a result, Hamlet is seen to repress his desires and conclude that he is no better than his uncle Claudius.

Suddenly, Freud was gone and another person, unknown to me, appeared. Who is that? I thought, but instantly he introduced himself to Sophocles, ‘Mr. Sophocles, what an honor to meet you, I am Ernest Jones.’ I thought about that name… Ernest Jones, Ernest Jones, no, no idea. Anyways, he started talking with Sophocles about the same thing: Hamlet and Oedipus. In this case, he based his argument on Hamlet’s repugnance of Gertrude’s incestuous relationship with Claudius, while at the same time, fearing his death. Wow, incestuous. That one must be an important word. Thus far, I’ve seen it like ten times mentioned by Hamlet. Incestuous. And then he disappeared again, and then Sophocles. Now it was just my mind in the dream, I guess I’m dreaming no more, I thought…

Now, I didn’t know if I was still dreaming, but my mind was rushing through thoughts and ideas. I thought about Hamlet’s inexplicable procrastination as a direct outcome of that “Oedipus complex.” He is continually postponing his act of revenge (we saw he was unable to kill Claudius in the previous scene), due to his complicated psychodynamic situation in which he finds himself: the uncertainty of thought against action, the impossibility of it, the ‘to be or not to be.’

Meta

For the last three years I have been blogging and I have never been able to write about something in specific. Wait, is this passive? Loquacious? Let’s start again. I have blogged for the last three years, and I haven’t been able to write about this:

My favorite word, or at least prefix of a word, is meta. Metafiction, metacognition, metaphysical, metalogic, metafilm, metatheatre, and metaphor. Metaphor. What is a metaphor? According to definition, a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity. You as readers must be saying, ‘do you want to give me a language lesson?’ Not quite. Maybe if you let me develop my thought, we might arrive to the end of this blog peacefully. Shall I start? ‘Well, you should’ve started one-hundred words ago.’ Dude, if you keep interrupting I’ll never start, ok?

To the other readers, who are in fact interested in my writing, I’m sorry for this delay. Now, I shall continue. My favorite prefix is meta, and if I take into consideration metaphor, metatheatre, and the context referent to Act III scene ii of Hamlet, I might arrive to something. Let’s see. Once again, Shakespeare brings upon us the play within the play. Just as we experienced in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, a play within the actual play we are reading appears, and apparently, reflects much of the thematic present in the actual play. Metatheatre. So, it’s a play within a play, about a play. Oh my god, for a moment I thought I was writing a blog about Slaughterhouse-Five! Anyways, as soon as we read “The play’s the thing, wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king” (II, ii, 633-34), many different variables come to place. But that’s Act II, and in this act, Act III, we are able to observe how the antagonists (Claudius and Hamlet) coincide in the questioning of the truth.

Besides the consequences brought upon this play within the play, the Hamlet we observe here is quite different than the Hamlet from the previous scene. Before he was unable to control his reactions, and was shown previously by his effortless manipulations of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. But Hamlet’s introspective, and somewhat bipolar personality, is contrasted with Horatio’s calm perception: “Give me that man / That is not passion’s slave, and I will wear him / In my heart’s core, ay, in my heart of heart, / As I do thee” (III, ii, 76-79). After this, we as readers put into question Hamlet’s state of mind. We might infer that he is not insane, given the effortlessness with which he changes between wild, erratic behavior, and focused, sane behavior. While taking with Horatio before the play, he shows indexes of excitement, but as soon as Claudius and Gertrude enter the scene, he begins acting insane. By this, we might deduce he is only pretending to be.

But back to my favorite prefix, the presence of this play is an example of metatheatre. But well, that’s explicit. However, the significance of the play is much deeper. It attacks the “conscience of the king,” which directly alludes to Hamlet’s thematic of thoughts versus action, and also, resembles metaphorically what could’ve been the tragedy before the tragedy: the death of King Hamlet. This metaphor, therefore, taking the form of a play within the play, resembles the play itself, and helps us decipher Hamlet’s personality, which in the end, goes beyond the words in his soliloquies.

I’m done, you see? I had the idea, dude. ‘Yeah, whatever, and it took you almost six-hundred words to develop it.’

Between Thought And Action

It’s quite amusing how you sympathize so much with life and death, to the extent I don’t really know which one you prefer.

Well, off course, there are moral corollaries that imply each phenomenon. Is it righteous to endure life, those ‘slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,’ rather than actively seek to end that suffering? To me, death is like sleeping. When you die, you conclude that agony and woe that life means. By dying, we are no longer uncertain, and we end ‘The heartache and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to,’ and therefore, suicide is a desirable action for men.

But apparently, you are not only concerned with the choice of living or dying. You mention the action of suicide to being ‘a consummation devoutly to be wished,’ what do you mean by this?

Afterlife. We die, then what happens? Just as we sleep, what happens when we sleep? We dream. As we dream in death, daunting images appear in our perception, and these ‘must give us pause’. Then, if death can be a bed of roses, and life be a path of misery, why should man bear melancholy ‘when he himself might his quietus make with a bare bodkin?’ Essentially, nobody would choose to live, however, people fear death, and while this remains constant, they will prefer to live rather than confronting a hypothetical more miserable fate that might be afterlife. This fear of afterlife leads mankind to a state of moral sensitivity, and ‘thus conscience does make cowards of us all, and thus the naïve hue of resolution, is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought.’ Hence, in the end, we live life with fear of the misery we might confront, that fear that our thoughts build upon our head. And we live in an ambivalent dilemma between thought and action. But anyways, I find it frustrating, still, not to know what to do, ‘to be or not to be.’

Well, I really hope you’re able to find the answer to that question.

Oh, thank you! But really, when I do, everybody will. I’m not only thinking for myself.

Hamlet To The Powers Of Ten

I kept being told that today was a historic day due to the fact it is October 10, 2010, or 10.10.10. A cousin of mine told me that in 1977, Charles and Ray Eames made a nine-minute film called Powers of Ten, which enhances the viewer to distance from a couple’s lakeside picnic 10⁴⁰ meters, until the Earth is just invisible in the majesty of the universe. Afterwards, it’s the opposite, the audience is brought back to the couple’s lakeside picnic, and then taken 10¯¹⁶ meters, beyond the subatomic particles that build upon every human cell. And now that I sit upon my computer, a priori writing a blog entry about two different interpretations of Hamlet’s soliloquies, I think about this video. I think, and I think again and I realize that coincidence cannot be just the word that describes my case, but instead, I argue that the video might be relevant to what I am about to write.

“When you go to a play, you don’t sit there to see the play, you sit there to see how the play is adapted. Everyone knows Hamlet, but still, people pay to see how Hamlet is brought to the stage, or to the screen.”

As I watched the video, I thought about these two different adaptations of Hamlet. To make my point, Kenneth Brannagh’s interpretation of Hamlet’s first soliloquy is just as travelling in negative powers of ten (10¯¹⁶). Meanwhile, David Tennant’s is just the opposite, like travelling far away from the lakeside picnic in powers of ten (10⁴⁰). Brannagh recreates the details of a very accurate imitation of 1600s Denmark, just as Shakespeare would’ve done it. He goes deep into the skin the body, until reaching the subatomic particles that build it. He takes into consideration the details, and achieves a quite accurate representation of what could’ve been Shakespeare’s dream-adaptation. As a result, Brannagh is just simply adapting Hamlet himself, rather than interpreting him. Yes, we all know Hamlet, from the play we can infer he is melancholic and introspective. Therefore, if the movie portrays him just exactly, how are we going to know those details that aren’t written in the lines of the play? How are we supposed to answer those enigmas left by each of Hamlet’s soliloquies? There are things that words can’t tell, and that’s where the interpretations might come to be very profound.

O that this too too solid flesh would melt,
Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew!
Or that the Everlasting had not fix’d
His canon ’gainst self-slaughter! O God! O God! (I, ii, 129-132)

Suicide? Death? Unconformity?

But if we take the other direction, and we travel backwards, in powers of ten, we might get a better vibe of Hamlet’s thoughts. In the case of David Tennant’s interpretation (yes, an interpretation), portrays a rebellious Hamlet, displaying anger, disappointment, melancholy, and defiance. The audience is able to feel his sensations more directly as Hamlet makes eye contact with the audience, destroys the camera, and shows more evident expressions of his feelings, in contrast of Brannagh’s passive Hamlet. Now, how does this relate to The Powers of Ten? Well, just as we travel further from the Earth, and observe at what we call the ‘big picture’ we are able to give importance to what we cannot see, instead of giving importance to what’s explicit from the text, or in this case, image. We stand back, distance ourselves from the play, and as a result, are able to interpret those themes written in between the lines.

Oh, and by the way, the line that I was assigned a couple of weeks ago appeared in the second soliloquy: “The play’s the thing, / Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king” (II.ii).

Thoughts Waiting To Be Read

He opens his black laptop computer while lying on the sofa, thinking about what to write. What to write… Thinking of words to type, ideas to develop, and thoughts to contextualize in the Word document that glanced at him blankly through the computer screen.

“September 30, 2010,” he told the Word document, “Title.” He couldn’t think of anything else to tell the blank document gazing at him.

Meanwhile, his mind was walking through a dark street, nothing could be seen. As ideas started to enlighten his mind, the road started to shine different things in the sidewalk: lonely pedestrians walking, alienated people, and his mind just stared at them.

“Alienation!” he shouted to the Word document.

But he thought to himself, ‘I cannot only talk about alienation and that’s it. It would be boring to read, even to myself.’ So he kept staring at the Word document, and the only thing he could do was start writing about nothing. He started writing, “He opens his black laptop computer while lying on the sofa, thinking about what to write. What to write…”

He continued telling the Word document:

As the reader, or viewer, of Krapp’s Last Tape experiences the re-telling of his life through a series of memories captures in various tapes, he is able to perceive that, throughout the course of his life, Krapp has steadily distanced himself from the companionship and love that other people cherish. He tells us that at the age of twenty-nine he lived with a woman named Bianca, “at that time I think I was still living on and off with Bianca in Kedar Street. Well out of that, Jesus yes! Hopeless business. Not much about her, apart from a tribute to her eyes” (Krapp’s Last Tape). This hopeless situation that entangles Krapp throughout his life leads him to become isolated from his surrounding to the point he feel completely alienated from every detail of his life. Therefore, in this scenery we see of himself being old, with his tape, is the only way he can feel back the warmth of love and companionship in his life.

He stopped writing. He thought about the part where Krapp had mentioned about the death of his mother. Meanwhile his mind, in that street where he saw lonely pedestrians and alienated people, some hopeless ones started to appear. Hope. Hopeless.

In the moment his mother died, Krapp began to feel completely alone. Hence, hopeless: “I noticed a scratch on her thigh and asked her how she came by it. Picking gooseberries, she said. I said again I thought it was hopeless and no good going on, and she agreed, without opening her eyes” (Krapp’s Last Tape). This isolation he started to feel in the world after the death of his mother leads him to plant himself completely hopeless in life. His isolation is self inflicted. He buries himself under his own oblivion. And in the end, his only way of alleviate this alienation is by listening to his last tape.

Wow. He wrote a lot in the last thirty minutes. The Word document had passed from being an empty face, to being a face full of expressions. Those letters, signifying something, would wait to be read, as those in Krapp’s tape. His mind would continue walking in that street, where the lonely pedestrians, alienated people, and hopeless character stroll in the side walk. Meanwhile, the words are nothing until the moment they enter someone’s mind and recreate that street.

“Save,” he told the Word document, “this is enough for today.”

The Exquisiteness Of The How

Many times, when I read a book, watch a painting, a film, or a play, I tend to dwell into the thinking about the what, or the why. I try to explain what is happening, why is happening. But I completely forget about the how. How is it happening? For example, just before I started writing this blog entry I was reading Rayuela by Julio Cortazar. In the novel (or anti novel as it is commonly classified), Morelli talks about words that describe, that entangle the character into the situation and not the other way around. According to Morelli, through the usage of these words, the essence of the situation becomes more important than the situation itself. It doesn’t matter what is happening, where it’s happening, or what is going to happen next. All that matters, for him, is how it’s happening. Then, how is Krapp’s Last Tape happening?

Krapp's Last Tape is set in Krapp's den a room that reflects, to a large degree, Krapp himself. It is bare, save for a small table; this lack of ornament emphasizes Krapp's emotional sterility and loneliness. As he is without any human interaction, his room is without anything that suggests comfort or humanity. In this screen shot, a wide shot, we can observe the contrast of the light and the dark in this empty room, and how the shadow of Krapp conveys these two. A shadow represents dark in the presence of light, therefore, this duality of light and dark embraced in the shadow might signify the loneliness of Krapp, and his isolation in the world. Like a shadow, where there is an isolation of darkness in the presence of light. Also, by being filmed in a central angle always frontal towards Krapp, the figure of him is unanimously central. And the tedious environment where he is displayed, the audience can clearly infer the situation that he embraces.

That’s the how. It’s beautiful. It’s endless. When you try to explain what’s happening in a specific scene or context, at some point, there won’t be more to say. But description can have infinite focuses. In this entry, I only attempted to describe a fraction of all the techniques and details that these work embodies. Right now, for example, I don’t know how to finish my thoughts. I always put to much thinking in my last sentence. I guess I will have to leave like this.

Ending It With Different Styles

The end of The Great Gatsby by Cormac McCarthy:
In the future, we will try to improve, get better. But in the end, it won’t happen. It won’t happen.

The end of The Road by F. Scott Fitzgerald:
We thought that everything was older than humanity and perhaps, anonymity, believing it would untangle the mystery that recedes upon our future.

The Tragedy Of All Tragedies

This introduction to Hamlet by Kenneth Branagh captivated my attention, especially in the techniques he uses to portray the significance of the play itself, and also, convey the themes that it involves. Just as Orson Welles used the eyes and the hands, the blood, and the obscure scenario to evoke the thematic of Macbeth, the usage of mirrors in Branagh’s Hamlet is a perfect technique to give more momentum to the frequent soliloquies in the play. And if we are talking about Hamlet, which frequently is dubbed as the play of all plays, the tragedy of all tragedies, and the climax of Shakespearian tragedy, we as readers/audience should have very high expectations of the work itself. What’s my main expectation? To know why “There’s no good or bad but thinking makes it so” (Hamlet) or “To be or not to be” (Hamlet) are more transcending phrases in society than “Fair is foul and foul is fair” (Macbeth).

The Tale Of The Orphan Child

Some years ago, I lived one incident
That when remembered its only lament
For me, my family and memory,
That is just enough to tell my story

I lived with both my brothers and sister:
Andrés, José, and Sam, which I prefer
To call Ms. Eagle because she can see
And distinguish any inconsistency
Present in any place, at any time…
But now, I shall, continue with my rhyme.

One September night we went to the city
To watch The Road, that seemed a bit gritty.
My dad was still “at work”, well, that’s what he said,
So we went to the movie with my mom instead.

During the movie, Sam just kept staring
At a couple that was kissing and moving
In the front row, but only Sam noticed.
The movie was charming, I almost cried
When the man dies and leaves his son alone,
To find in this road, the good ones on his own.

The movie ended, and Sam kept looking
At this couple that kept kissing while going
Out of the theatres into the night’s cold.
She looked at the man, he was tall and old,
And someone she knew: it was her father
Getting into a Cab with his lover.

My mother also recognized my dad,
And she told us, instantly that we had
To follow dad, to see where that car
Was heading him and his lover so far
Outside the city, into the profound
Solitude of the suburbs empty ground.
In the highway, the Cab gathered speed
Up to scary limits, and nothing would impede
My mother from imitating the action
And speed up to the intersection
Of both lanes. Instantly in that moment
A car appeared, causing an accident.

I remember seeing a pair of weak
Lights coming towards us, hitting the peak
Of our car and my memory leaving
Until the moment I was standing
In the asphalt of the lonely highway
Looking at the still bodies, to my dismay.

Apparently, the crash had been between
The Cab, our car, and the other one I’d seen.
I looked around, spotting dad’s lover,
My mother, Andrés, José, my sister,
The Cab driver, and the man that was in
the other car. I grabbed my phone within,
and called the police, asking for vital aid,
“Hello? My name is Alex and I’m afraid
I need urgent help!” The voice on the line
Responded “Yes, sir, we will assign
A patrol to your place. What’s your location?”
Straight ahead, a sign read I-5 Intersection,
So I told the lady the place I stood
And thought about anything I could
Do to contain my mother’s grave bleeding,
And my brothers’ and sister’s constant weeping.

About two hours later, an ambulance
Arrived, and I focused at the quiet glance
Of the still bodies as the men carried
Them, one by one, as a few of them died
Little by little, in the arms of these
Doctors, hearing the voice of the night’s breeze.

I didn’t know how to feel, or what to feel
Waiting for the doctors to reveal
The fate of my mother, and wicked father.
My two brothers and sister, had rather
Survived the accident, and they sat
Besides me, in silence, waiting for that
Door to open with nothing but good news.
We waited, as I thought who to accuse
For this accident: my father, for depraved,
Or my mother for following the paved
Way behind the Cab he took, with his lover
To the outskirts of the city and uncover
The truth about him and the dissolution
Of our family, with no chance of resolution.

The doors of the room opened gradually
As my anxiety increased hastily.
A tall doctor appeared in my sight,
And he approached as I felt the night
Grow colder and colder as he grew closer.
I knew that his words would be either
Great or horrible. He asked for my name
And told me everything while my life became
The main factor of this story I’m telling,
While I sit here remembering and smelling
The loneliness of the road as I sat there,
Alone, accompanied by the dead air
Of the bodies of my mother and father,
Who died as their love died with each other.

And that’s my tale, which I bear in mind
So deep in myself as I try to confine
That loneliness I felt in the road,
Like the son, alone, with only one load
Left in the pistol, as his father died.
This movie marked the day that would divide
My life into two halves: the half with my
Family, and the half until I’d die.

As The Crow Flies Towards Death

No, I haven’ had a chance to see The Road movie. I called different theatres and in most of them, the premiere of it is this Friday, September 24. Anyways, as I finished the book, even though my first choice topic for blogging was a comparison with the movie, I’m going to give it a shot with another focus. What focus? It’s quite simple I guess, if you read the title of my entry: Death. Death pervades over everything in the book. For example, every character expects to die in any moment, especially the father, who apparently tends to have some type of paranoia towards death. He constantly checks if his son is breathing, and gives him the pistol every so often in order for him to kill himself with the pistol instead of suffering a painful death. Death is adamant at the end of the road. Even though people try to get prepared to die, the will die anyways. As Ely suggests, “People were always getting ready for tomorrow. I didn’t believe in that. Tomorrow wasn’t getting ready for them” (McCarthy 168). In the case of the father, he feared death and tried to keep his son in the dark about death, but inevitably, he dies at the end of the novel.

The road we follow throughout our lives is, in some extent, very similar to the crow’s flight. As the father explains to his son, the crow’s flight is in straight line. The road, in this case, is a straight line towards death. There is no way out of the road, no alternatives. Therefore, the father and his son are inevitably paving their way to an eventual death. They travel along the road hoping for a destiny that is utopic, because eventually, there will be an end to the road as there is an end to their lives. In the road, the father is “placing hopes where he’d no reason to” (McCarthy 213), looking for an exit where there are none. This effectuates his fear in death, and the reason he keeps his son ignorant about the matter. He tries to hide his constant cough from the boy, and in the end, the only thing he is left to do is die in the feet of his son. Also, he believes that “every day is a lie” but dying is the only fact that is not a lie (McCarthy 238), therefore, with death, comes the truth that he searched for throughout the book.

The Re-Birth Of A Book That Never Died

Maybe when we go back to the past, it has changed. Or maybe our future is meant to be going back to our past. I thought of writing this blog entry about the different points of view that Sonya Chung, but then I asked myself, why? Why would I want to re-write the same story, and fail, like Hunter S. Thompson tried with The Great Gatsby? Then, off course, I thought of the last line of Fitzgerald’s book, and how much it reflects what the Chung discusses in her blog entry: “So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past” (Fitzgerald). Now is the moment I put into testing all what I’ve learned about close reading in the last three years. First of all, we can extract from this sentence that even though we look for a future, pursuit our destiny, destiny itself is back in our past. In fact, Nick Carraway goes back to his past at the end of the story, he leaves the East and goes back to his homeland at Minnesota.

But then, what does this have to do with Chung’s blog entry? Well, she talks about how “the works stays the same; it’s we who change” (Chung), and as well, refers to how each reading of a book is different. In the case of Nick Carraway, his homeland stays the same before and after his departure to New York, and even though he has the chance of “beating on” and continuing his life in the East, he goes back to the past, just in the same manner we go back to reading a book even though there are many more in our libraries. Destiny brings us back to the same book, once, twice, and every so often and each time we will find it different, but the book is, and will always be the same old story. But we, we are not the same person, in fact, we are older.

Without counting the beautiful sentences, the relevance of the film adaptation, or the importance of Fitzgerald’s descriptions, one thing that Chung notes about the book is its ability to be eternal: to survive the decades without getting old, without becoming ashes in oblivion. To point out this argument, she describes the book as being “it’s a story about everything and everyone else. “I see now that this has been a story of the West, after all,” muses the narrator Nick Carraway at the end” (Chung). Based on this, the metaphor of The Great Gatsby becomes bigger than just the descriptions, the symbols, or the thematic. Instead, we can interpret this book as reflecting the reader itself through Nick’s experience. We are the West, those unimportant figures in the reading. Here, Fitzgerald highlights the reader as being the main character of the story. Because in the end, the story is simple, but those details he puts, and that metaphor that he creates with the book itself, is what makes the book immortal. By reading the book, maybe a couple of times more, we will see ourselves reflected on its pages.

Okay

The child and his father. Or the father and his son? I take a look at many of the books I’ve read in the last couple of years, and find a particular aspect in all of these: every single one develops a relationship between two central characters. The relationship can be dialectic, antagonistic, foil, nemesis, alter ego, etc. I can remember many names, many characters, and many different stories: La Maga and Oliveira, Don Quixote and Sancho, Kurt Vonnegut and Billy Pilgrim, Jay Gatsby and Nick Carraway, Charles and Emma Bovary, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, and finally, the father and his child. But then, which of the types I mentioned does this relationship fit in?

We have the child, being naïve, innocent, and feeling emptiness in his heart due to the absence of his mother. And we have the man, having a strong belief in God, faithful, valiant, and owner of an unnamable love for his son to the extent that he becomes paranoid. If so then what? As the only two central figures, the father and son become dialectic, just as La Maga and Oliveira, but in this case, real love is going on: “What would you do if I died? If you died I would want to die, too. SO you could be with me? Yes. So I could be with you. Okay” (McCarthy, 11). Even though the topic of death is recurrent in this relationship, we are never quite sure of who is the one who fears death. First of all, we have the child wanting to die in order to be with his mother, but at the same time, is afraid of encountering death in a harsh manner. On the other hand, the father isn’t afraid of death, he will even die in order to protect his son and keeps the last round of bullets in his pistol to avoid his child of dying in a unforgiving manner. But about death I might talk in a future entry, due to the fact is a broader topic…

For now I concentrate with the child and his father, or the father and his son? It sounds as if both are equally important, and the focus of the reader remains equal throughout the book. We can argue that Sancho, eventually, is as important as Don Quixote in Cervantes’ novel, then, is the child the foil of his father? Honestly, this little naïve guy reminds me of Sancho himself, as he escorts his father through the perils of the road, even though he only preoccupies his father rather than protecting him. And even though he doubts of his destiny, he never doubts of his father: “And we’re carrying the fire. And we’re carrying the fire. Yes. Okay” (McCarthy, 129). This line repeats throughout their relationship, serving like the inspiration motto, hope, the light at the end of the tunnel. Well, in this case, the road. And with the recurrence of the child’s “Okay” we might extract his faith towards his dad, and his desire not to take his contrary. Complete allegiance. Then, is it the child and his father, or the father and his son? I don’t know yet. Okay. Okay.

Ashes Of Memories

Ashes. They are everywhere. As long as we walk we will see ashes containing the presence of my son and me. These ashes walk with me, guide me through the road, and make me remember. Remember…

When sitting in front of a chimney I see lumber, pieces of wood exerting heat, due to the fire that, apparently, is crumpling them. Minutes later, the lumber I looked at became ashes, it was only a memory. As I turn the pages of this book, the page before, becomes ashes, a memory. Therefore, I would love to share this quote before it becomes… What? Ashes: “The ashes of the late world carried on the bleak and temporal winds to and fro in the void” (McCarthy, 11). These ashes walk with them through the road, just as the ashes read with me, flying free from the chimney and becoming memories as they try to reach me. Anyways, besides being personified, the ashes are there always, besides them and besides me throughout the book. Well, in my case, due to the fact I read this first fraction of the book in front of a chimney…

Ashes, like living while being dead. They preserve everything. Reminds me of Pompeii, this historic city of the Roman Civilization that collapsed under the ashes of Mount Vesuvius, and nowadays, we can look at it and see the intact streets, the stores, houses, the bodies… These ash-covered city, two thousand years later, stands still, and we can feel like walking back all those years and being present at the moment everything happened…

Then, the ashes leave us a clear hint of the destiny of the earth, “or perhaps the last music on earth called up from out of the ashes of its ruin” (McCarthy 77). These ashes not only maintain a body, but also a memory. Hope, as described through the words of “the last music”, is buried within the ashes that cover the pages of this book. Or memories. Ashes bring back forgotten thoughts, as it happens to the man with his constant flashbacks. But in the end, the last music will revive from ashes. Just as a beautiful phoenix burns in flames and breathes life out of the ashes.

Feeling Melancholic

As soon as we read the title of the poem, “The Raven”, we can automatically deduce that the central figure of the poem is a raven. While reading it, various excerpts and verses of the poem not only establish the raven as a symbol of the poem itself, but also give it metaphorical value. With the verse, “Quoth the Raven ‘Nevermore’” (The Raven, 48), it is explicit how Poe gives the Raven characteristics of a human being, hence, employing personification. By giving it a human characteristic of speech, the significance of the Raven can further be interpreted as being a sort of omniscient voice, or the voice of conscience.

Since throughout the poem the narrator is apparently becoming mad while mourning the death of his love Lenore, the Raven serves as that metaphysical voice that he hears. Not only his repeating onomatopoeia of “nevermore” takes a significant role, but also the Raven’s eyes, “And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon’s that is dreaming”, making them a metaphor by comparing them with the demon’s eyes. And through this, it makes the Raven be the source of all the suffering and grief that the narrator is experiencing. But also, with all the repetition of rhyme, sound consonance, and alliteration, Poe is able to reproduce linguistically and visually the melancholy and depression that every verse transmits.

Duplicitous Church

SW 19
London, England
September 5, 1395

Dear Timothy,

Sorry for just contacting you until today, I’ve been spending my whole vacations reading this book by Geoffrey Chaucer entitled, The Canterbury Tales. I send it to you so you can notice many arguments that can, in fact, contradict all your philosophy and ideology about the Church. Throughout the various tales you can notice one same recurring aspect: the Church. He isn’t quite exactly idolizing the Church, instead, he is criticizing it through these very satiric pieces of fiction.

Specifically, the tale that most captivated my attention about the hypocrisy of the Church that Chaucer portrays was The Pardoner’s Tale. First hand, the teller of the tale, the Pardoner, is the complete opposite of what you can expect from a person like him. For example, he starts his tale saying, “Now, for the love of Christ, that for us dyed, / Lete youre othes, bothe grete and smale” (Chaucer, 658-59). What a hypocritical act don’t you think? But such act is consistent with the type of character that Chaucer has presented to us as the Pardoner. But, this satiric aspect of Chaucer’s parody towards the Church is consistent throughout the Tales. He portrays the religious figures in a deviate manner, where their personalities correspond to that of common medieval stereotypes. As a result, he reduces the Church’s importance, and instead, satirizes its significance to the height it serves as cynical comedy for the reader.

But, Tim, even if you don’t agree with Chaucer’s point of view and that of his Tales, please read it as soon as you get it so you realize how the Church is a puzzle of contradictions. It’s quite interesting to see both sides of the picture, Tim, and with the Pardoner we not only learn that “Radix malorum est Cupiditas” (334), but also that he himself is representing the Church, and hence, is sinning since the very beginning of his story by swearing and violating the Second Commandment. But I will leave it for you to interpret.

Hope to hear from you soon,

Andrew

The Gospel According To The Wyf Of Bath

Let me start. Let see, what can I say about this tale? Through the reading of the Tale of The Wyf of Bath, and taking into account it comes after The Miller’s Tale and The Knight’s Tale, I find it important the way Chaucer arranges this stories in order to contrast their different themes and points of view. In a way, these are different ways of telling the same story, not literally, off course. Plainly, the stories of each of the tales are quite different, but if you take their meanings into consideration, they aren’t quite different. All of these are told in order to transcend the idea of love in different perspectives. As I have discussed in earlier entries about the presence of love in The Miller’s Tale and The Knight’s Tale, here, the Wyf of Bath takes a completely different perspective: being love a tool to achieve what they most want in the world.

Good point, but, I thought of The Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John: each of them narrating a similar thematic through different perspectives, but all leading to the same message. Then, what is Wyf’s perspective? “Wommen desiren to have sovereynetee / As wel over hir housbond as hir love, / And for to been in maistrie hym above” (Chaucer, 1038, 1040). In my personal opinion, considering the fact that women had the complete control of men in a society of circa 1300 is quite idealistic, but still, leaving clear her message. Also, this idealism transmitted by the Wyf with statements like such mentioned above, might be further interpreted as skeptical towards a patriarchal society. Through this skepticism, the Wyf portrays men as completely untrustworthy and superficial, by demonstrating the knight’s shallow transformation through the tale compared to the old woman’s notorious change.

Still, why does this old woman appear?

Just to change everything and give it a happy ending?

It sounds to me as deus ex machina.

Yeah, sort of, but she sounds to be representing the Wyf herself. Even though she is old and a bit aged, she is able to display all her inner beauty and heartiness when the right man (the knight) appeared in her life: “But, for ye speken of swich gentillesse / As I descended out of old richesse, / That therefore sholden ye be genti men, / Swich arrogance is nat worth an hen” (Chaucer, 1109-12)…

But then the knight also appears to give happiness to the old woman.

Yes, but he is also happy, he provides her what a woman most wants in the world, and as a reward he receives all her inner beauty. Just as it happened to the Wyf of Bath, as she found the real feeling of love in her fifth husband.

As I told you in the beginning, she, the Wyf of Bath, considers love a tool, a way to reach total happiness and those things women most want in the world. It’s a different version of love. Not the noble and loyal one as portrayed by the Knight, or the one The Miller depicts, full of adultery, and mockery.

Yes, this sounds like The Gospel according to The Wyf of Bath.

Is This Truth The Real Truth?

I seriously doubt about the sincerity and authenticity of this Wyfe of Bath’s stories and memories about her past husbands. As she tells the pilgrims, and us, every once in a while after talking about something she did, or said, she would end the sentence uttering, “and all was fals” (Chaucer, 382). How credible can a source of information, in this case our dear story teller, the Wyfe of Bath, if every so often she regrets of what she says and makes a correction? To me, not quite reliable. But anyways, since she is the narrator, she can decide the truth. The narrator is the manipulator of this truth we, as readers, or the pilgrims, as listeners, are spoken of. The Knight, and the Miller are also narrating their tales, and hence the truth of them, their verisimilitude is abstract since everything that happens is subject to their manipulation of the truth.

Is this truth the real truth? We don’t know, this reality of which we are reading changes in every tale. First we have loyalty, heroic men, manipulating deities. Then, we have adultery, farts, and weak characters. Now what? What will be the truth according to the Wyfe of Bath? I really hope it’s a bit more reliable and less contradictory than the stories about her husband’s. Also, this bias of the Wyfe’s story toward feminism is relevant to her point about Church’s writings, which portray women as evil due to the fact they were written by men: “If women hadde writen stories, / As clerkes han withinne hire oratories, / They wolde han writen of men moore wikkednesse” (Chaucer, 693-95). Hence, every single story, tale, legend, or allegory told in the world throughout history, every single one is subject to the truth its narrator wants us to comprehend. Then, as you read this blog of mine, you might ask yourself the same question, is this truth the real truth?

Parodying The Bible, Love, The Knight’s Tale, The Characters… Can It Not Be A Satire?

What’s it going to be then, eh? (Burgess, A Clockwork Orange) This Miller guy, he is practically satirizing everything in the world, which sort of reminds me of The Crying of Lot 49, in which Thomas Pynchon satirizes everything, to the level that the book is a satire of itself! But back to this tale, this Miller uses his tale to procreate a parody to a variety of articles inside and outside The Canterbury Tales. I guess I’ll start with the Tales before I go into broader terms.

We have this tale, The Miller’s Tale, and The Knight’s Tale which we read before. We could easily argue that each Tale is stereotypical of the personality of its corresponding narrator, where The Knight’s Tale reflects in its plot the Knight’s principled and moral personality, while in The Miller’s Tale, the plot revolves around ribaldry and obscenity, typical in the Miller’s personality. But indifferently from what these two are alike, it is notorious how the Miller parodies much of the thematic from The Knight’s Tale: “A husband must be inquisitive / Of God’s secrets, nor of his wife” (Chaucer, 3163-64). With the mention of “God’s pryvetee” he is satirizing, not only the topic contemplated in The Knight’s Tale about the divine plan that decides fortune, but also recreates an obscene pun where the line also refers to the wife’s secrets, which can be referred to her private parts. Also, he is reversing The Knight’s Tale loyal love, where two brothers fight for the hand of Emelya, and making love’s sense an insignificant one. The Miller not only satirizes on the pretensions of loyalty by portraying Nicholas and Alisoun in a completely detailed manner, but also makes fun of love itself with the scene of Absolon kissing Alisoun’s anus.

We can see that this Tale, hence, satirizes a couple of aspects within these Canterbury Tales, and through these parody, the Miller is able to parody much more wider topics, like The Holy Bible, for example: “This Nicholas immediately let fly a fart / As great as if it had been a thunder-bolt” (Chaucer, 3806-3807). Through this line, the Miller is procreating the scene of a fart, to the historical legend that God sends thunder to planet Earth (must common in Greek Mythology with Zeus), which clearly reflects the parody towards God. Furthermore, we see the Biblical reference of Noah’s ark and adultery as subjects of parody. Then, how can this not be a satire? Perhaps Pynchon read The Miller’s Tale and fell in love with the beauty of satire. Maybe also Voltaire was inspired by this bawdy Miller to write Candide, or Anthony Burgess to start his book. Just in the same way I am inspired by these authors to write this blog entry.

Blaming The Gods Or Humanity?

“Guys, today we will learn about four of the Roman Gods!”

The class seemed bored, though enthusiastic at the teacher’s blissful statement to start talking about these characters they’ve heard in the different excerpts of mythology. They had heard before, and they knew their names had something to do with some of the planets in our Solar System.

“So, who knows the name of the God of agriculture and harvest? Yes, Charlie…”

“Isn’t it Zeus?” asked Charlie, quite confused with this Roman Gods the teacher was asking for. Evidently, Charlie wasn’t the brightest man alive, and everybody in the class, and you my reader, knew that.

“Oh no Charlie, that’s a Greek God! But nice try though, anyone else? You have the word, Joseph,” the teacher gave the word to the student she knew would give her the right answer, because hearing Joseph answering a question was always a pleasure.

“Yes, Ms. Emelye, the God of agriculture and harvest in Roman Mythology is Saturn, who is, as well, father of Venus amongst other Gods.”

“You’re right Joseph! Very well explained! Yes, guys, as Joseph said, Saturn is the God of agriculture and harvest. Now, can anyone beside Joseph tell me who the God of love is?”

Now a girl, Sophie, had the answer in her mind. She was also smart, but, besides Joseph, she didn’t know that much about Medieval literature and Ancient Mythology.

“That should be Venus, Ms. E, she is the goddess of love I think.”

“Hooray! It seems to be that we are experts in Roman Mythology. Now can someone….” Before Ms. Emelye could continue with the next question Joseph interceded.

“She is wrong, Ms. Emelye, Venus cannot possibly be the Goddess of Love, as Sophie said because in Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Knight’s Tale, her temple is described as ‘the broken sleeps, the cold sighs, the sacred tears, and the lamenting, the fiery strokes of the desiring that love’s servants endure in this life’ (Chaucer, 1920-23), I cannot possibly imagine the Goddess of Love being a symbol of emotional and spiritual foundations of agony. Or do you think its coherent Ms. Emelye?”

Joseph’s speech had left everybody in the classroom speechless. Ms. Emelye had realized that she had in her classroom’s desks a little whiz kid. She took a couple of second, taking a path through memory lane and remembering of The Canterbury Tales she had read in her High School years: “You are right, Joseph, Chaucer portrays Venus as the Goddess of the complete opposite of what should be called love. He portrays the impiety that love can cause, like lust, envy, or adultery. Very good point. Anything else you want to add?”

“Yes, Ms. Emelya, off course. Another God that Chaucer mentions in The Knight’s Tale, the part of the tournament between Palamon and Arcite, is Mars, the God of war. But here, he doesn’t portray him as one that withstands glory, courage, and pure nerve. Instead, his temple is one that represents ‘armed Discontent, Alarm, and fierce Violence (…) a thousand slain, and not killed by the plague, the tyrant, with his prey taken by force’ (Chaucer, 2012-15). Here, Mars is the God of murderer, hypocrisy, disaster, and treachery, not War. Chaucer portrays him as everything that causes violent dangers in humanity.”

The rest of the class was now an audience of the discussion between Ms. Emelya and Joseph. They were both in the same page, as she answered: “That’s very true, Joseph, the Knight in his tale wants to portray the Gods as the causes of misfortune in the human world. He entitles them as the responsible of misfortune, and that the Fortune shift in the world is constantly moving. As well as Diana, the Goddess of Chastity, instead of giving protection of her virginity to Emelya, she act like a force that won’t let things stay the same, therefore incentivizing change in a human’s fate. You could take that tale as a criticism to heavenly deities. Do you get me?”

“Yes, but then, what about Saturn? He is also present in this tale,” Joseph asked curiously.

“Well, he is there to balance things out, all this Fortune changes. He is overturning the fortune of everybody through his actions. For example, he makes the Earth shake so that everybody’s wishes become true.”

Joseph tried to say something, but he stayed quiet. He kept thinking about what the teacher had told him about the criticism to the Gods. He didn’t interpret it that way. Instead, he thinks that the tale means that men cannot life or govern themselves peacefully, and they need of an outer force to settle everything up. Hence, to Chaucer, or the Knight in this case, humanity is wicked and needs of somebody to guide them through “the path that does not stray” (Dante’s Inferno).

Between Love’s Wicked Fortune

In this dream, I was seated around a wheel, which looked more or less like roulette. It kept turning around, and as looked around I saw people around it, as well. They give the impression of being quite different as this wheel turned. My prospect kept focusing at myself, but, am I in this dream? It seemed so, my sight was watching at myself, amongst others. On another edge of the wheel was a man with his couple, I guess, but he didn’t seem as happy all the times. On the other side, a lonesome man looking with hope at the wheel, but wasn’t happy anyways. My other self was rather happy, like if this roulette had just stopped at his chosen number or color. As he was happy, I felt happy, but as the wheel started to spin again, my other self started to feel rather empty, as if his happiness had vanished. Maybe he contemplated the fact that winning the last time was useless if he lost this time.

I heard him say, “Thanked be fortune and hire false wheel / That noon estaat assureth to be weel” (Chaucer, 925-926). As this roulette kept spinning I thought about what my other self had just said. But why? He was gorgeous five seconds ago, when I just arrived. Apparently bliss and agony are not that far apart, and nobody is vetoed from adversity… This lonesome man was now apparently gorgeous, and the man with his couple kissed her and gave her an engagement ring, while my other self weeped in despair, saying, “I nam but deed; there nys no remedye (…) And whan a beest is deed he hath no peyne; / But man after his deeth moot wepe and pleyne” (Chaucer, 1274, 1320-21). His misery was balanced out by the others’ joy, and the other way around. This roulette made some be happy at the expense of others who weep. Good fortune and bad fortune, here, seem connected. This wheel or roulette apparently manipulates this pattern, as if heavenly bodies were playing puppets on humanity.

Then we have death. Men seek death for relief of this bipolarity of fortunes, a refuge for these constant reversals of fortune. But as men die in grief and lament, death is no sure solution for life’s problems. Instead, death is the debt that all men pay. This debt that is pending during the lifetime: the final reversal of fortune… Oops, sorry, I let my mind dominate my speech. As I was telling, this roulette manipulated the delight and gloom of this people at my dream: the couple who had first been sad, then had the man propose to her, and right now, they were arguing about some things I couldn’t quite hear over the bipolarity of my other self’s mourning and glee. Simultaneously, the lonely man had undergone changes of joy and sadness, while my other self was the opposite side of the coin.

'Rumembering', Transforming, Migrating

Such a simple, but complicated phenomenon as migration. We migrate from our homeland to somewhere else looking for an opportunity: we migrate because of choice. We migrate because of an obligation to set the route of our lives a new destiny: we migrate forcefully. But even though migration can be simple to identify and classify into different cause-effect processes, it’s a dilemma that has modified history’s fate by changing, moving, and modifying the peoples that populate the world. Personally, as I travel throughout the world, when I glance at a different culture, I am indirectly taking parts of that culture into my own culture.

Through this poetic film, Merina characterizes this phenomenon of migration through the example of the 17th century trade route between the Phillipines and Mexico known as the Manila Galleon Trade. By taking it, describing it through images, and immersing the reader in the momentum through the voice of the narrator, the video is able to make this simple example and example of a universal dilemma: migration. Through the use of repetition, and listing of words and elements, “the simple chemistry of this / distillation of a kiss / thirst / and a word like rum / and a word like rum / and a word like… / achuete / atole / avocado / balsa / banqueta” (2:15-2:32), Merina is able to mimic the context of the ship, the trade route, the migration of all these objects, if we may call them so. This technique of mimesis reminds me of Saul Bellow’s Seize The Day, in which the author imitates the atmosphere of 1950’s New York and the life of its main character Wilhelm.

But even though the main attraction this poem sets, or at least the first thing we recognize as we hear it, is the mentioning of a handful of objects. Of these, I found quite attracted towards rum, he mentions it a couple of times, actually: “rum is the cane’s sugar water” (1:36-1:38). Rum’s meaning here, or symbolism might refer to the transformation undergone through the process of migration. As people migrate, they change. A similar change that rum undergoes: a metamorphosis from sugar can to liquor. Hence, here, as we travel across the waters from place to place, we are transforming. We are migrating.