LIT103A - Paper #3

Darlene McCoy

Michael Ursell

LIT103A

14 March 2012

Early Feminist Extraordinaire, Aphra Behn

            According to Paradise Lost, John Milton’s “epic to end all epics,” women have been made of men for all time. Eve, only through Adam, has the ability to understand and communicate with God. In Milton’s time, virtually no female authors existed in high literature – there were no women to speak up for their gender, for their ability to think was so belittled that women did not even feel the need to write, and even if they decided to, common folk would not read their work over a man’s. Thus, very few female authors existed. However, with time, authors of the feminine genius sorts, such as Aphra Behn, have been inducted into the traditional British canon. Modern times, arguably less prejudiced, allow her text to be read and examined. Her play, The Rover or The Banished Cavaliers, can be read as an early feminist text, especially when contrasted with the inequality of genders present in Paradise Lost. In Paradise Lost, Adam holds power over Eve. In The Rover, Hellena, a heroine of the comedy, holds power over Willmore, a lead man interested in courting her. Adam and Eve are as they are in their Biblical setting – they are the mother and father of all creation. Willmore is a rover; Hellena a gipsy.

            In Paradise Lost, Adam’s first speech guides Eve before she says a word of her own, “But let us ever praise him, and extol / His bounty, following our delightful task / To prune these growing plants, and tend these flow’rs, / Which were it toilsome, yet with thee were sweet” (4.436-39). She replies, “O thou for whom / And from whom I was formed flesh of thy flesh, / And without whom am to no end, my guide / And head, what thou hast said is just and right.” (4.440-443). Adam’s correction of Eve before she speaks implies that she must be guided by him before she can speak. This creates a hierarchy in the text: first came God, then man, and then woman. This hierarchy places woman below man – therefore making men and women unequal in Paradise Lost. Eve’s first words are words of agreement with Adam. She does not question anything he says; she has no agency. Furthermore, Eve’s words are written by a man who assumes her voice, which further takes away from her already nonexistent agency. However, Milton’s apparent prejudice against women in his creation of Eve’s lines is not the only factor working to create gender inequality.

            In Paradise Lost’s depiction of Adam and Eve, the narrative speaker, not Eve, proclaims that God placed true authority in men, and then notes the inequality between a man and a woman: “Whence true authority in men; though both / Not equal, as their sex not equal seemed; /” (4.295-6) Adam and valor formed for contemplation (4.297); Eve and sweet attractive grace formed for softness (4.298). A valorous man is a man who can roar into battle and demonstrate his prowess, one who takes action, and in doing so, personifies courage, a characteristic worthy of praise and recognition. This attribute, and Adam, formed in order to behold the world attentively and with careful thought. Eve, on the other hand, formed with sweet attractive grace, pleasing qualities, for the reason of being soft – tender, weak, yielding – not contemplative like her counterpart, Adam. These words, used by the narrative speaker, who is genderless, demonstrates without Eve’s pro-hierarchy biased dialogue that women are not supposed to think; for they were not made to that purpose. They are instead, simply to be decoration the world of men. They are to be recognized only for their pleasing feminine qualities, not their thoughts or actions. However, this is not the last level of the text in which one may find gender inequality. Adam’s power reaches further than the voice of the narrative speaker.

            The epic form works to promote the gender inequality of Paradise Lost. An epic is a form that hails from the classical tradition. Paradise Lost is written in one meter and imitates noble deeds, as an epic does. However, traditional epic is written in heroic verse, and Milton wrote Paradise Lost in blank verse. The singularity of the meter implies that only one meter will do to describe all of space and time; there is no other way to form it. All other meters – such as heroic verse, are “barbarous” in comparison to Milton’s blank verse. Heroic verse is characteristic of classic epics, written by the Greeks and Romans, and if it is not displeasing to read or listen to, as it might not have been for Milton, considering he was a fan of poets that used heroic verse, why would he find it “barbarous” and unfit for his epic? The Greeks and Romans believed in more than one god – making them “barbarous.” Milton could not write his epic in heroic verse, knowing that it hailed from brutes who believed in pagan gods. For Milton, there is only the Christian God, and therefore only one form for his epic.

Classic epics are written about men of noble deeds, such as Odysseus. Milton is aware of this sentiment, and addresses it in the first lines of Paradise Lost, by evoking a Muse in order to “justify the ways of God to men.” (1.26). By ordering the Muse to sing of his tale that debunks pagan beliefs, he takes command of her, as a Muse is generally personified as a woman, and uses her ability to create beautiful poetry to do his bidding. Since Paradise Lost is such a literary success, it would seem that the Muse sang for him, and since the Muse has no personified retaliation in the tale of everything that ever was and will be, it can be assumed that her retaliation is not hidden, but nonexistent, because the Muse’s gender is female, and women are not supposed to question their male betters. This abusive use of the Muse, contained in the form of Paradise Lost, a tale of noble deeds, further points to the inequality of gender present in the text.

However, not all literature was as heavily prejudiced against women. The power relations between Willmore the rover and Hellena the gipsy can be read as a text to combat the inherit gender inequalities present in Paradise Lost. A rover, in the context of Aphra Behn’s play, is an exiled Englishman – a cavalier. These men were royalists in the English Civil War who supported King Charles I and his son, Charles II. When Parliament took power, they became suave pirates and saucy rogues in order to survive the onslaught of Puritan values. A gipsy – a cunning, deceitful, fortune-telling woman, was like a rover in the sense that a gipsy has no affiliation with any nation. Hellena and Willmore’s status puts them on an even playing field – for both a rover and a gipsy are of wit and cunning – their only difference is gender.

Hellena and Willmore meet during Carnival times and he begins to attempt to court her by “giving his heart” to her. After some time progression in the play, Hellena dresses in “antic different” garb, making her hard to recognize. Willmore and his friends soon enter the scene, and Willmore begins boasting about his experiences with another woman, exclaiming, “By Heaven, Cupid’s quiver has not half so many darts as her eyes! – Oh, such a bona roba! to sleep in her arms is lying in fresco, all perfumed air about me.” (191). Hellena secretly internalizes his words. Later in the play, Willmore, enticed by his friends, begins to think about Hellena again. She appears on the scene, reveals her face to him, and then accuses Willmore of seeing another woman. He defends himself, saying that the house he exited was of a man-friend. Hellena then uses Willmore’s own words against him: “And wasn’t your man friend, that had more darts in’s eyes, than Cupid carries in’s whole budget of arrows? Ah such a bona roba! to be in her arms is lying in fresco, all perfumed air about me – was this your man friend too?” (195). Willmore, who can do no more than stutter, submits to the power of Hellena’s rhetoric, and then swears “I do never to think – to see – to love – nor lie – with any but thyself.” (196). Hellena’s choice to stay hidden from Willmore in order to observe him shows her cunning thought and her agency. A woman of less cunning might lose control of her emotions and blatantly accuse Willmore of lying with another woman. A woman of less agency might not think to question Willmore’s actions at all, even if presented with evidence of betrayal. Hellena, however, goes beyond simply accusing Willmore of foul deeds; she uses his own words – the means of his power over others – in order to gain power over him. She demonstrates that she can use a man’s words as well as Willmore, if not better than he.

In the final scene of the play, Hellena and Willmore banter as they do: they use each other’s rhetoric to assert power over the other. Hellena then decides to walk away from Willmore, and finally, the rover cannot control his love for her. He stays her, and then says, “Nay, if we part so, let me die like a bird upon a bough, at the sheriff’s charge, by Heaven both the Indies shall not buy thee from me. I adore thy humor and will marry thee, and we are so of one humour, it must be a bargain – give me thy hand. – And now let the blind ones (Love and Fortune) do their worst.” (243). Willmore’s marriage proposal allows Hellena to claim victory over him. Furthermore, Willmore asserts that “love and beauty have their own ceremonies;” which implies that if Willmore is to marry, he is to marry for love and beauty – not to make another human being his property. As women became the property of the men they married in the time of The Rover, this notion of marriage for “love and beauty” is another victory for Hellena.

These ideas are quite radical for the times in which they were written. If a culture such as Aphra Behn’s held these ideas of women as property to their husbands because they are lesser than men, how is it possible that her play was a smashing success? Would not the audience members begin to question the play as soon as Hellena presents herself as a wit? The form of this play – a comedy – undermines all of Hellena’s wit and agency – for she performs her role as a joke for the common person to laugh at. Comedy began as an imitation of “lower people,” but only in the sense that what is ridiculous is part of what is ugly. After evolution into a respectable form, comedy takes away the look of personal ridicule to make its stories more universal. Therefore, audience members of a comedy would have prior knowledge that what takes place on stage is supposed to be ridiculous. In Act III, Scene I, Hellena’s [aside] is a rhetorical device aimed at getting the audience’s attention. Her [aside] lines are, “Here’s fine encouragement for me to fool on.” They are in reference to Willmore boasting of his lying with another woman. This line implies that to ponder Willmore’s actions and words would be to fool. Therefore, for Hellena, to think would be foolish. Her choice to think on the matter anyway could be found to be ridiculous by the audience; she would play into the audience’s expectations of a comedy. These lines would be especially effective as a rhetorical device for they would capture the audience’s attention by directly addressing them with knowledge they are well-aware of. Knowing that the play further emphasizes their thoughts would allow them to relate to it and further draw them into its action. While Hellena could be seen as an early feminist hero, the play’s form undermines that notion. However, the audience members would not find as much pleasure in the play if Hellena were not as witty and cunning. Her person allows them to be pleasured. Therefore, she, and her creator, Aphra Behn, are in control, and have the last laugh at curtain call.

Aphra Behn’s genius allowed her to subtly promote feminist ideas in an incredibly misogynist time. Her careful contemplation allowed her to create a feminist hero, Hellena, undermine her using the form of her work in order to make her work well-read and successful, and then allowed her to remain in control. The common audience member viewing The Rover would not have been able to discern a feminist agenda – for a feminist agenda was such a radical idea at the time that not even comedy, the container for ridiculousness, could ground such an idea. It comes as no wonder, then, that Virginia Woolf, one of the largest figures in the tradition of women in literature, commented, “All women together ought to let flowers fall upon the tomb of Aphra Behn, for it was she who earned them the right to speak their mind.”

LIT102 - Paper #2

Darlene McCoy
Susan Gillman
LIT102
16 February 2012

Notice: Persons Attempting to Translate Twain Will Be Shot

If I were a translator-editor working on a “multilingual” version of Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn for a multicultural age, I would leave the text as it is, especially if the stated goal of the publisher was to step squarely into the debates over the history of censorship of the novel. Alas, if I were a translator-editor, I would have to produce some sort of work, for otherwise, I would not receive my income. So, for the sake of providing for myself, I would render this “translation.” It is adapted into “standard English” that would be acceptable for public high school students in the United States to read and process.

I told Jim about Louis XVI, a French king that was beheaded in France a long time ago; about his little boy, the dolphin, which would have been king if those who opposed his father hadn't taken him and shut him up in jail. Some say he died there.

"Poor little kid."

"Some say he escaped, and then came to America."

"That's good! But he'll be pretty lonesome-- there aren't any kings here, right Huck?"

"No."

"Then he can't get involved in anything. What is he going to do?"

"I don't know. Some people join the police, and some teach others to speak French."

"Why do they do that, Huck, don't French people speak the same way we do?"

"No, Jim; you couldn't understand a word they said -- not a single word."

"Well I'll be a monkey's uncle! Why couldn't I?"

"I don't know, but that's how it is. I read some French in a book. Suppose a man came up to you and said parlez-vous français-- what would you think?

"I wouldn't think anything. I'd just take him and beat him over the head-- that is, if he wasn't white. I wouldn't allow someone of a lower social status to say that."

"Aw, he wouldn't be insulting you. He's just be saying, 'Do you know how to speak French?'"

"Well, then, why couldn't he just say that?"

"He is saying that. It's just a Frenchman's way of saying it."

"Well, it's a ridiculous way, and I don't want to hear anymore about it."

"Look, Jim; does a cat speak like we do?"

"No, a cat doesn't."

"Does a cow?"

"No, a cow doesn't, either."

"Does a cat speak like a cow, or a cow speak like a cat?"

"No, they don't."

"It's natural and right for them to speak differently, isn't it?"

"Of course."

"Isn't it natural and right for a cat and a cow to speak differently from us?"

"Why, it most surely is."

"Well then, why wouldn't it be natural and right for a Frenchman to speak differently from us? Answer me that."

"Is a cat a man, Huck?"

"No."

"Well, then, there isn't any reason why a cat should speak like a man. Is a cow a man? -- er is a cow a cat?"

"No, a cow isn't either of them."

"Well, then, a cow has no place to speak like either of them. Is a Frenchman a man?"

"Yes."

"Well, then, gosh darn it, why doesn't he speak like a man? Answer me that!"

I then realized that I was wasting my breath -- one cannot teach a person of lesser intelligence to argue. So I quit.

It is impartial to define what exactly, “standard English” is, because I am translating to this standard. I wrote for a specific audience, so I wrote to their idea of “standard English.” Before I define “standard English” as seen by a public high school of the United States, it is also impartial to address why I translated for them. The education system in the United States, specifically, is one that every citizen must take part in (at least on paper). Thus, the curriculum taught there must be correct and acceptable, because every child born in the United States must get an education through this system. The question, then, becomes, “what is standard curriculum?” I cannot speak for any high school save my own; I do not have the adequate knowledge to speak for others – so for the sake of simplicity – I use “public high school of the United States” as a synonym for my conception of a public high school, based roughly on Cordova High School, in Rancho Cordova, CA. My specific school may not follow the same standards as all others, but it is, indeed, a public high school in the United States, and thus relevant to this discussion. A public high school of the United States would not want to use Mark Twain’s original text because a public high school in the US would define “standard English” by much more restricting criteria. “Standard English” would need to be grammatically correct, convey semantic meaning, and be inoffensive to each student who reads it. Furthermore, in the history of the United States education system, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn has been a highly controversial novel, for in the eyes of at least one individual, it contains “racist” language and “coarse” ungrammaticalness, and those elements of the novel do not comply with ideas of correctness and what is acceptable in school.

Having said that, I deem that my translation is unacceptable and incorrect, because of Mark Twain's preface to his novel:

Notice

PERSONS attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot.

BY ORDER OF THE AUTHOR, Per G.G., Chief of Ordnance.

Explanatory

IN this book a number of dialects are used, to wit: the Missouri negro dialect; the extremest form of the backwoods Southwestern dialect; the ordinary “Pike County” dialect; and four modified varieties of this last. The shadings have not been done in a haphazard fashion, or by guesswork; but painstakingly, and with the trustworthy guidance and support of personal familiarity with these several forms of speech.

I make this explanation for the reason that without it many readers would suppose that all these characters were trying to talk alike and not succeeding.

THE AUTHOR.

Huckleberry Finn

Scene: The Mississippi Valley Time: Forty to fifty years ago

Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is not a novel that is up for interpretation. It is not to be translated. It is not to be changed in any shape or form. Out of respect for Mr. Mark Twain, it is to be taken by the reader for what it is, and nothing more.

I would like to take a minute to examine a change I made in my translation to “standard English,” as it would be defined by those who oppose the use of “nigger” in the novel due to the offensive nature of the term. The word “nigger” appears in the original selection twice. I have translated this word in two different ways, which are bolded in the translation: “someone of lower social status” and “person of lesser intelligence.” The word “nigger” is a term that has evolved through time and space. The Oxford English dictionary defines a “nigger” in the sense of referring to people in seven different ways and uses sub-definitions to further define some entries. This word connotes much more than just simply a person of lower social status or a person of lower intelligence. The word “nigger” evokes the entire history of the United States, because it is intertwined with it. It evokes people believing that they are less than another person because of their skin color. It evokes horrible scars, and unnecessary violence. In another context, it evokes thoughts and feelings of kinship. My translation does not use this word, and suffers no loss of logical meaning because of it. It instead loses the history and evocations of the word, “nigger.”

In my translation, I have changed Jim’s “dem”s and “dey”s into “them”s and “they”s. Jim’s use of “dem” and “dey” in Mark Twain’s original text is considered ungrammatical by my audience’s working definition of standard English because “dem” and “dey” do not follow any logical grammatical construct. My “them”s and “they”s convey correct grammatical meaning, but by changing Jim’s “dem”s and “dey”s I have taken his voice away from him – and he is not the same Jim that Mark Twain originally penned. He is a bastardized Jim, for Jim’s language creates Jim, and I should be shot. Furthermore, in my translation, Jim speaks in the same language as Huck does, so the differences between their dialects of English disappear. Dialects are evidence of different cultures, because a language is a part of what creates a culture. Therefore, by taking Jim’s voice away, I have taken away his language and culture.

“Nigger” is generally seen as an offensive term, and “Dem” and “dey” are generally seen as ungrammatical terms, but in the context of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, I would consider both to be words of Twain’s personification of his characters’ natural English, and therefore, see no issue with having the “incorrect and unacceptable” by “standard English” words reprinted. I would not dare touch a single word of Mark Twain’s work. His use of language points directly to multicultural and multilingual differences, because his language does not try to hide the fact that people and languages are different. The word “nigger” alone evokes the censorship debates concerning it because it is perceived as so offensive. “Nigger” will not appeal to every person who reads Adventures of Huckleberry Finn; nor will “dem” and “dey.” They will not be of their tastes, for whatever reason, but that does not make them incorrect or unacceptable. It only makes them unacceptable and incorrect in a society that defines “standard English” as the way my audience does, because that audience has a specific taste that must be satisfied by my work.

LIT103A - Paper #2

Darlene McCoy
Michael Ursell
LIT 103A
12 February 2012

Idealized Forms of Beauty in Fashion and Poetry
It is no surprise to find a description of aesthetically pleasing attributes of a woman in poems written by men of earlier times. The first edition of Christopher Marlowe's "Hero and Leander" was published in 1598. Robert Herrick's "Delight in Disorder" found its way into the hands of readers in 1648. Each poem makes an aesthetic statement using descriptions of clothing, and these statements express an ideal form in both fashion and poetry.
However, for fashion and poetry to correlate, there must be a reasonable connection made between them. How are the clothes humans use to decorate their bodies like rhetorical devices used to decorate poetry? Clothing is used to persuade another human being into believing a particular disposition. Rhetoric is used to persuade another human being into believing a particular disposition. Their only difference, in this sense, is the medium in which they are presented: one on a human body; one on a material body.
"Hero and Leander" is a free and original treatment of a classic tale of two ill-fated lovers written in the form of an epyllion. It begins by setting up the situation of the tale - two lovers live in two different cities - and then begins describing one of the actors. Her name is Hero; "Hero the fair." What follows should be a description of the ideal form of beauty - since a hero, in the time this tale was first written by Musaeus of Alexander, was the ideal form of a human being. Marlowe then takes twenty-five lines to describe Hero's apparel. He describes seven different articles of clothing in hyperbolic terms. For example: "Her kirtle blue, whereon was many a stain, / Made with the blood of a wretched lovers slain." (15-16). is an extravagant claim that those whom Hero denied her love committed suicide, thus leaving their blood on her dress. Each article is described using the same degree of excessive hyperbole; each description is uncannily precise. Another notation to be made about the description of Hero's dress is its monstrous implications. Heroic couplets perform in each line of Marlowe's description of Hero. A heroic couplet consists of two lines of iambic pentameter that end in a perfect rhyme.
"Hero and Leander" states that in both fashion and poetry, a work that is in perfect order and that encompasses every detail is the most beautiful. This is an Aristotelian ideal of poetry. The length of the description is excessive because it is all-encompassing, as Aristotle would have it. Nothing is left unexplained: every piece of Hero's attire is described in such overbearing detail that it is uncanny. "Uncanny" connotes feelings of strangeness and the supernatural. Something that is supernatural is not natural; something that is unfamiliar is strange because it is also not natural. How would a woman adorned in the blood of "wretched lovers" be natural? "Hero and Leander" adheres perfectly to the form of an epyllion. An epyllion is a term that hails from the nineteenth century meaning, "mini-epic." It is also noted that an epyllion follows the form of an epic precisely, except that it is shorter in length. This means that to be a proper epyllion, a poem must be written using heroic couplets, which, as stated above, Marlowe employs in his work. Aristotle believed that the epic had enough room to create a sense of wonder in the work, which would be why "Hero and Leander" is an 819 line poem.
"Delight in Disorder" is a fourteen line lyric poem that focuses on the imperfections of a woman's attire. It begins by stating that, "A sweet disorder in the dress / Kindles in clothes a wantonness." (1-2) This line establishes the theme of the poem: controlled forms of disorder are beautiful. Therefore, the lines that follow this initial set must be in the form of controlled disorder. It then continues to further elaborate on the woman's dress without the use of hyperbole: "A careless shoestring," (11). He simply states that a shoestring is untied. There is no implicit monstrosity to this shoestring and its untied-ness. While each line of the poem contains eight syllables, they do not all have the same meter. The meter in lines two and eight differs from the rest of the poem. Meter is not the only difference in form that lends itself to the theme of the poem. The rhyme scheme of the poem is not uniform. The first couplet, the fifth couplet, and the seventh couplet all end in perfect rhyme. The others, however, end in a rhyme that is only perfect if the reader changes their pronunciation of the last words of the couplets.
"Delight in Disorder" states that in both fashion and poetry, a work that is in order but contains minor imperfections, such as the leaving out of some details, is the most beautiful. This is a Horatian ideal of poetry. The length of the description is shorter because it does not encompass every detail of the woman's dress. Not every garment adorning her body is explained in full, explicit detail. Horace would not scorn Herrick's deliberate imperfections, because his poetics allow for imperfections, as long as they are appropriate and controlled. The words used to describe the woman's dress are not too explicit nor do they tell a specific story on their own - they are intentionally simple, but their simplicity is controlled. As stated above, a "careless shoestring" is a shoestring that is left untied, for some reason deemed by the author as "careless." "Careless" implies that something is arranged or uttered without art. Art is in the image of nature - so if art is taken away, all that is left is nature. Therefore, Herrick's line implies natural feelings. Horace abhors the thought of creating monstrosities using poetry. He does not believe that nature is supreme beauty and that humans cannot improve upon it by imitating it, but rather that humans must take considerable thought in creating their imitations, or monstrosities will appear in their work. Slight imperfections do not create a monstrosity; they are simply the mark of the human hand in creation, and that, in its own, is beautiful. "Delight in Disorder" is a lyrical poem, but it defers from its form in order to convey its meaning. A lyrical poem is a poem that allows itself to be recognized as a piece of work that is to be sung. Because it requires the use of voice, pronunciation and meter become an important part of the poem's meaning. In "Delight in Disorder", one who performs this poem may choose to pronounce its imperfect rhymes by changing the natural pronunciation of the rhyming words in order to form a perfect rhyme or pronounce them as they are, and allow the imperfect rhyme to be heard. They may also notice that lines two and eight do not fit the normal iambic pattern. They might pronounce the lines in iambs, anyway, or choose to pronounce the lines in another form: tetrameter. This confusion just further exemplifies Herrick's theme - because either way a performer speaks his words, they will feel the disorder the poem invokes. Whether or not they enjoy it - is up to the opinion of the performer.
"Hero and Leander" and "Delight in Disorder" are two poems that describe a woman's attire using distinctly different forms. Christopher Marlowe's form holds perfect imitation as the champion of beauty; Robert Herrick holds naturally imperfect order as the champion of beauty. Each poem expresses its view, and each is as lovely as the other, because the amount of effort and knowledge gone into each piece was enough to push it into the realm of classical British literature. They are simply two ways of going about writing poetry - just as Aristotle was simply a different man than Horace.

LTEL 170C - Essay #3

Final paper that I haven't posted yet. Whoops. It's alright. Got an 85/100. :/

Darlene McCoy

Michael Ursell

LTEL 170C

26 November 2011

Man is a Wolf to Man

Orson Welles, in an interview with Peter Bogdanovich, identifies Lear, of The Tragedy of King Lear fame, as an all-male man by describing him, "Lear clearly knows nothing about women and has never lived with them at all. His wife is dead – she couldn’t exist. Obviously, the play couldn’t happen if there were a Mrs. Lear. He hasn’t any idea of what makes women work – he’s a man who lives with his knights." He further explains that, "He’s that all-male man whom Shakespeare regarded as a natural-born loser in a tragic situation," and then connects this definition to the character of Othello, of Othello, the Moor of Venice fame, "Othello was another fellow like that." Welles implies three concepts: an all-male man does not understand women because he has not been around them much, that Lear and Othello are all-male men, and Shakespeare regarded an all-male man as a loser in a tragic situation.

As stated above by Welles, Lear knows naught of women. He lives with his knights, a rowdy ensemble that follows their king wherever he goes. They follow Lear to his daughters' houses, where each daughter refuses to provide hospitality for Lear and all of his men (King Lear II.4.244-256). There is no Mrs. Lear; she is nonexistent. Lear spends most of his time around men, thus, it is reasonable that his understanding of women is subpar.

Othello knows only of war. He recounts adventure after adventure in war to Desdemona, his soon-to-be bride, telling her of the Anthropophagi, cannibals, and other horrors (Othello I.3.128-170). All that is known about Othello's mother is that she gave him a handkerchief that she acquired in Egypt on her deathbed (Othello III.4.54-67). Othello has spent most of his life in the military, and cannot understand domestic delicacies that women of the time provide.

King Lear and Othello are different texts, but their male protagonists share quite a few common traits. In each play, the male protagonist demands a proof of love, and receives none but the woman's assurance of her loyalty and love by word. Lear asks his daughters to confess their love for their father publically in order for him to judge which would receive more of his property (King Lear I 1.1.50). Unlike her sisters, Cordelia refuses to explain her love for her father in frivolous words, she instead says, "I love your majesty / According to my bond, no more nor less." (King Lear I.1.91-92). Othello confronts Desdemona and demands that she show him the handkerchief he gave her (Othello III.4.84-95). Desdemona cannot produce the handkerchief, but tells him that she is loyal and true (Othello IV.2.34). Because the women were unable to produce a sufficient proof of love, the men’s' fear of infidelity takes hold of them, and they react violently. Lear asks Cordelia if her heart feels the same way as her words do, and when she replies in the affirmative, he becomes enraged and disowns her (Lear I.1.106). In a domestic situation, disowning a child is a very violent and rash act. Lear ends the life of his relationship with his daughter, for he proclaims that he never wants to see her again.

Both men, who are of high social rank, speak most of their lines in verse, but in instances of madness, divulge into prose. Othello's violent reaction to Desdemona's inability to produce the handkerchief and Iago's further poisoning of his thoughts is the first time Othello speaks in prose in the play.

Lie with her? Lie on her? We say "lie on her" when they belie her. Lie with her? 'Swounds, that's fulsome! Handkerchief - confessions - handkerchief? To confess, and be hanged for his labour? First to be hanged and then to confess! I tremble at it. Nature would not invest herself in such shadowing passion without some instruction. It is not words that shake me thus. Pish! Noses, ears, and lips! Is't possible? Confess? Handkerchief? O, devil!

He falls down in a trance (Othello IV.1.32)

This moment is a moment of madness. Othello falls into a trance, which can be defined as, "A state of mental abstraction from external things; absorption, exaltation, rapture, ecstasy." Trance, in Shakespeare's historical moment, was closely linked to the word "ecstasy." Ecstasy, in Shakespeare's moment, is defined as, "all morbid states characterized by unconsciousness, as swoon, trance, catalepsy, etc." The word ecstasy also carries a sexual connotation. Shakespeare's audience, fearful of Ottoman power, associated leaders of the empire, including Muhammed, the Muslim God, with indulging in sexual lust. It was known that Muhammed's bouts of epilepsy were explained as a divine punishment for his lechery (Vitkus 86). Therefore, Shakespeare's audience could see Othello falling into an epileptic attack and with all the added connotation of the audience's knowledge of epilepsy - this reaction would be quite violent for the time. Othello speaking in prose further bolsters the idea that something is terribly wrong, for prose is used to convey irrational, quick, emotional thought. Lear does not escape madness, and has his own moment of insanity. The first time Lear meets Poor Tom, a beggar madman, he realizes what his actions as king have done to his subjects. He feels ashamed, and then attempts to disrobe in the middle of a thunderstorm in order to experience life through the perspective of Poor Tom (Lear III.4.101). This passage is written in prose. Lear is a king - for him to speak prose instead of verse is quite the significant detail - for it denotes a change in Lear's mindset, allowing the audience to observe more deeply the breaking down of Lear's inner workings.

Lear and Othello both challenge their natural roles in society. Lear is an old king who simply does not want the responsibility of being a king anymore (Lear I.1.38-40). The audience of the time would know that one cannot simply step down from being king. Othello, on the other hand, is a Moor of Venice. A Moor, defined by the OED is, "a member of a Muslim people of mixed Berber and Arab descent inhabiting north-western Africa." In Shakespeare's time, his audience would believe that Othello is a convertite. He no longer follows the Muslim path, but is now Christian. Othello exhibits signs of his Christendom in his language. He mentions Saint Peter when accusing Desdemona of being a whore (Othello IV.2.92). Yet, Shakespeare's audience would also believe that converting from one religion to the next is an act of whoring out one's soul (Vitkus 78). Therefore, the audience defines Othello as an outsider of Christendom even before he utters a word. Lear challenges the order of the world, and Othello challenges Christian faith.

Now that Lear and Othello have been defined as all-male men, and associated with each other, why would Shakespeare consider them natural-born losers in the tragic situation?

The women that Lear and Othello fail to understand, Cordelia and Desdemona respectively, function on three virtues: faith, love, and loyalty. Each woman's portrayal evokes Christian imagery and language. Desdemona herself announces that she is a Christian when Othello accuses her of adultery, "No, as I am a Christian. / If to preserve this vessel for my lord / From any other foul unlawful touch / Be not to be a strumpet, I am none." (Othello IV.2.83-7). Her speech here embodies a common Christian value - women must remain chaste until they are married. In Orson Welles' film version of Othello, he uses black and white film technology to create a glowing effect around Desdemona each time she appears on screen. Lights always brighten her face and features. Also, in the movie, while Othello strangles Desdemona, he covers her face in a white veil, possibly signifying that the two never consummated their marriage, and that Desdemona dies an untainted innocent. Desdemona's untaintedness makes her death far more tragic in the Christian mindset, because she dies as a pure, innocent, and almost angelic figure.

Cordelia, Lear's youngest daughter, address her father time and time again as, "lord." The other daughters do not (King Lear I.1.86-103). This distinction in language allows Cordelia to shine in what could be considered a holy light. At the end of the play, when Lear finds that his youngest daughter has been hanged, he takes her in his arms (King Lear V.3). The scene is reminiscent of the Virgin Mary holding Jesus in her arms after his death. Considering how Christian Shakespeare's audience was, this scene would not seem like a stretched connection, but rather, a reading that seems very plausible. Cordelia's portrayal as a Jesus-like figure would make her death be almost as overwhelmingly tragic to the audience as it was to Lear himself.

Each woman reiterates her love and loyalty for her respective man time and time again. Desdemona confesses her love and loyalty to Othello many times in the play, even after he hits her in public,

Othello: Why, what art thou?

Desdemona: Your wife, my lord, your true and loyal wife. (Othello IV.2.34)

To the audience, Desdemona's love is obvious and clear, but Othello cannot understand his wife. This tension creates dramatic irony, which makes Desdemona's death later in the play more tragic. Cordelia confesses her love of her father to the audience twice in Act I before confessing it publically to her father. She says, "[Aside] What shall Cordelia speak? Love and be silent." (King Lear I.1.61) and, "[Aside] Then poor Cordelia, / And yet not so, since I am sure my love's / More ponderous than my tongue." (I.1.75-7). The audience, once again, knows that Cordelia loves her father, so watching him disown her a few line later allows the play to be more tragic. Each woman is in conflict with an "all-male man," and pitting these virtuous, Christian women against their male counterparts makes them seem like quite the losers, indeed.

Lear and Othello pursue an idea relentlessly, until that pursuit leads them to commit heinous acts. Those misguided acts allow for the tragedy in each play to set in. Lear pursues power after he relinquishes it. However, Lear does not want to deal with the responsibility that great power calls for. He exhibits this pursuit in the play by his constant badgering of Goneril and Regan to stay at their estates (King Lear I.4, I.5, II.4). Lear still wants to control them, even after he has stepped down from being king. When Goneril and Regan deny him control by giving him an ultimatum, Lear becomes furious (King Lear II.4.193-297). Lear's madness does not aid him in his pursuit of power; rather, it allows his daughters to take more power away from him. Lear pursues power until his country is at war, and the political system around him has crumbled. This misguided pursuit of power without responsibility drives Lear's actions in the play, and becomes his demise.

Othello, once poisoned and enraged by Iago, pursues divine retribution for Desdemona's perceived transgression. Othello is not akin to the idea that he must now kill his wife, "Yet I'll not shed her blood, / Nor scar that whiter skin of hers than snow / And smooth as monumental alabaster - / Yet she must die, else she'll betray more men." (Othello V.2.6). Yet, Othello will kill her anyway because he perceives himself as a man of the Christian faith, and he must deal out retribution. After Othello kills Desdemona, and then realizes that she had been innocent all along, he kills himself. Othello believes that by killing himself, he is killing the Turk/Muslim that lives inside of him. "Where a malignant and a turbaned Turk / Beat a Venetian and traduced the state, / I took by th' throat the circumcisèd dog / And smote him - thus." (Othello V.2.351-5). Yet, this is the moment where Othello proves how little faith he has. A true Christian would never, ever, take their life, under any circumstances, not even to destroy a Turk. Othello's lack of faith, but pursuit of divine retribution is his ultimate demise.

A common feature of early tragedy is that the main protagonist has a hamartia of some sort. Hamartia is defined by the OED as, "The fault or error which entails the destruction of the tragic hero." Lear and Othello both exhibit signs of a fatal flaw. Each man strives for something: Lear for sovereign power; Othello for divine justice. What they fail to comprehend is that with great power, comes great responsibility, and great retribution comes only with great faith. According to T. C. W. Stinton, another common interpretation of the word hamartia is that it denotes a "moral deficit" or a "moral error," which he concludes that Bible translators have linked to "sin." (Stinton 221). In an incredibly Protestant community, it is quite reasonable that Shakespeare's audience could make the same connections, and thus see Lear and Othello's fatal flaws as sins, making Shakespeare's personification of each character in the situations of Othello and King Lear a negative commentary on power without responsibility and divine retribution without faith. If Orson Welles understood Shakespeare’s commentary in this fashion, it would seem logical that he would state that, "He’s that all-male man whom Shakespeare regarded as a natural-born loser in a tragic situation," for, in Shakespeare's time, Lear and Othello were all-male men who lost in a tragic situation.

LTEL 170C - Response #1

Reading Response #1
Ever since winter of last year, I've taken a great interest in Shakespeare's sonnets. I read a piece by Peter Stallybrass, "Editing as Cultural Formation: The Sexing of Shakespeare's Sonnets," and wrote a short little paper on it. As a short summary, this piece explained the history behind the forming of the sonnets in their modern-day form. The what was considered homosexual text was edited time and time again by 18th and 19th century editors to make it seem less homosexual. In fact, these editors were so obsessed with attempting to make Shakespeare look entirely heterosexual that they did not put as much effort in attempting to make him not look like a pedophile. By the time Shakespeare's text had gotten to modern times, it had been edited so many times that according to Stallybrass, it hardly resembled Shakespeare at all.
Then, this week, I was introduced to Segdwick's article on homosocial desire, and it got me to thinking about the sonnets again. After reading Stallybrass' essay, and then the sonnets themselves I was convinced that the first group of sonnets were written to a man - I had no doubts in my mind. Now, since I've read the Segdwick article - I'm not saying I have changed my mind entirely - but it seems that it is a possibility that Shakespeare was writing to nobody in particular through all of the sonnets. I believe that in the historical context of Shakespeare's time, it was possible that Shakespeare was writing sonnets to show off to his male companions. I also believe that he might not have been writing to anyone in particular because the sonnets form a very interesting type of narrative. It starts with a man in love with a Fair Youth, then moves to a betrayal by the Fair Youth, the eventually degradation of the man and Fair Youth's relationship, the depression that follows afterward, and the sad, sexual desire filled by the Dark Lady. To be fair - it's quite the interesting narrative, almost theatrical, and at least for me, provided a deal of entertainment. I also believe that it is a possibility that Shakespeare was showing off to his friends because of the sonnets that are mostly about how poems can immortalize a Fair Youth, and how the written word can challenge death. Those are both ideas that to me, sound magnificent and intelligent, and if I had come up with those ideas, I'd want to show them off to my friends, too.
It's sort of sad that we will never know of Shakespeare's true intentions, but then again, I don't believe that any author's true intentions in writing any work are discernible.

Stories!

I can write about me
and you
and you and me

Homan.

If only
one day
I can find the words

Lord of the Rings is cool.

As a ruler:
Would you leave the land you love, to see it prosper under another's rule?
OR
Remain loyal to your people, and attempt to keep buggerin' on?

Thinkin'.

???

~.~

Lit 101 - Short Assignment #2

Darlene McCoy
Jody Greene
Lit 101
February 14, 2011

Subtly Sexual Satire

In J.M. Coetzee's novel, Foe, he engages his text with quite the hefty amount of literary theory. In a certain scene, Susan Barton, the protagonist, discusses with a Mr. Foe, an author, how the written word comes to a person. She says, "The Muse is a woman, a goddess, who visits poets in the night and begets stories upon them. In the accounts they give afterward, the poets say that she comes in the hour of their deepest despair and touches them with sacred fire, after which their pens, that have been dry, flow" (Coetzee126). This passage engages with the idea of the Muse, as set down by Plato. "Therefore, since their making is not by art, when they utter many things and fine about the deeds of men, just as you do about Homer, but is by lot divine - therefore each is able to do well with only that to which the Muse has impelled him" (Plato 16). The Muse visits an author, and imparts upon him a story. It is only by chances that the Muse will visit, though, and the author will fail to produce quality work if the Muse has not yet seen him. Though the thought is similar, Coetzee is not simply promoting Plato's concept of the Muse - he is in fact, mocking the idea.

Previous to Susan's depiction of the Muse - she and Mr. Foe had been chatting, and he abruptly kisses her - to which she responds to positively. Love finds its way into the air, so when the reader reads the phrase, "She touches them with sacred fire, after which their pens, that have been dry, flow," the notion that more than talk of the Muse may be taking place enters his mind. Indeed, in the following pages, Susan Barton and Foe share a bed. They do as human beings do - they have relations of the sexual nature. Before the encounter, Susan whispers to Foe, "This is the manner of the Muse when she visits her poets" (Coetzee 139). After they finish, Foe says, "A bracing ride - my very bones are jolted, I must catch my breath before we resume" (Coetzee 140).  Coetzee pokes fun at the idea of the Muse's visit by sexualizing it. Plato describes the Muse's visit as from the gods, and the author as an interpreter of the gods - an event to be taken as quite holy and divine (Plato 15). In the novel, Susan and Foe fornicate in a fashion that is less than divine. Fornication on its own is a very human act – it is human instinct to reproduce, and humans are to the gods as apples are to minivans – completely different. The fact that Foe acknowledges that he has been "jolted" further emphasizes the joke Coetzee makes of the Muse. His specific reconstruction of the idea makes a parallel between Plato’s Muse and the happenings of Foe, making it easier for the reader to decipher the jest. By making this joke, he insinuates that the concept of the Muse is a folly, and that "inspiration" comes from life itself. This is a direct contradiction to Plato's intended meaning - for he truly believed that the Muse was a being of substance. After reading this passage, Susan's initial description of the Muse becomes increasingly symbolic of intimacy, and the idea of the Muse becomes increasingly absurd. Therefore, Foe engages with the text of Plato by mocking and contradicting it in a subtle little way.

Lit 101 - Essay #2, Summary & Critique of a Critical Argument

Darlene McCoy
Jody Greene
Lit 101
7 February 2011

Translation Gone Wrong

    In Peter Stallybrass' essay, Editing as Cultural Formation: The Sexing of Shakespeare's Sonnets, he argues that in an academic setting, Shakespeare is a 19th century author. To reach this conclusion, he uses the written works of the privileged to explain how the poet could still be writing in the 19th century.
    He begins with the first man to translate Shakespeare, John Benson. Benson reordered the sonnets, gave titles to individual sonnets, combined sonnets into one poem, and changed many a "he" to a "she." He edited Shakespeare for what he thought it was worth. Then came along a Edmond Malone, who translated Shakespeare for the understanding of the man behind the words. He defined the character of the man. Shakespeare's character becomes a questionable topic after these two differing translations are published. To defend Shakespeare against possible accusations of pedophilia, John Boswell dedicates himself to proving that under the circumstances of his time, he simply could not be. His reasons are as follows:
    (1) In the Renaissance male-male friendship was expressed through the rhetoric of     amorous love. (2) Shakespeare didn't love the young man anyway, because he was his     patron, and the poems are therefore written in pursuit of patronage. (3) The poems are not     really about love or friendship, because sonnets are conventional. They are, then, less     about a young man or a dark lady than about Petrarch, Ronsard, Sidney, and the like (a     boy's club, but not that kind of boy's club) (Stallybrass 131).
Malone offers his commentaries at the bottoms of his pages, but they are often commentaries in response to other commentaries left by George Steevens. Steevens believed that the Sonnets should not have ever been published and that if they were, they would transform the world into one that accepts sodomy as a social norm. Steevens' fear promotes the idea that Shakespeare is a sodomite - because if he did not believe that Shakespeare was indeed a sodomite, he would have no fear of the Sonnets' publication. The two interpretations of the sonnets created a discrepancy in the understanding of Shakespeare's character. The discrepancy allowed for the creation of  a heavily edited volume. The volume contained both Malone and Steeven's commentaries, and the sonnets, in the form given to them by Benson. Basically - the volume was a compilation of commentary on one man's interpretation of Shakespeare written by 19th century authors. Therefore, Shakespeare becomes a 19th century author - because the original text and materiality of the work has evolved into quite the different beast, but still denoted as "Shakespeare."
    The discrepancy reared its head in the writing of Samuel Coleridge. He picked up a copy of William Wordsworth's British Poets, in which he found a note objecting to Shakespeare's heterosexuality. Out of respect for his friend, he did not erase what he thought to be untrue. He then attempted to explain Shakespeare for himself by denouncing Shakespeare's imagination and comparing the purity of the Greeks to that of the playwright. His final conclusion, in regards to Sonnet 20, is that Shakespeare "disguises himself as a pederast to avoid detection as a man 'deeply in love' with a woman" (Stallybrass 137). Stallybrass implements Coleridge's solutions to the issue of Shakespeare's sexuality to demonstrate the extent that these men will go to make themselves and each other believe that Shakespeare was a heterosexual man. Continuing from Boswell's reasons as to why Shakespeare is not a pedophile, "(4) Malone was wrong, and the sonnets are, after all, a miscellany. They 'had neither the poet himself nor any individual in view; but were merely the effusions of his fancy, written upon various topicks for the amusements of a private circle'" (Stallybrass 131). According to Boswell, Malone was just wrong in his interpretation - the sonnets were not actually of any importance. Stallybrass uses Boswell's words to further demonstrate the logical flaws in the arguments of the men who shaped Shakespeare, so that the reader can clearly see that Shakespeare has evolved from the man he once was to a man defined and debated over by countless numbers of editors.
    Stallybrass structures his essay into chronological order, so that the reader may follow the time line of editor after editor more clearly. On the contrary, he fails to define the terms he employs to aid in the explanation of his argument. The reader must, upon his first reading, understand the concept of a "hysterical symptom" and "moral panic." Stallybrass also fails to define why the reader should care what Malone, or Boswell, or Colerdige has to say about anything. He does say that he is not interested in their scholarly credentials - but neither is the reader. Why is it that the reader should care about these men and their ideas? He says that they are men of cultural influence, but provides no evidence of their feats. Furthermore, the reader might take interest in the idea that the materiality of the text might also have to do with the production of different interpretations of Shakespeare. Stallybrass does not address this idea fully, which leaves a hole in his argument - because the materiality of the text could have aided in the transformation of Shakespeare, and if it did, even in the slightest way, the changes would need to be addressed.
    While Stallybrass explains his thesis clearly, he leaves a loophole in his argument that could be filled with another essay, or additional information. He could add the cultural credentials to the men he references, so that the reader may trust that they are not random commoners with opinions. All in all, though, he is able to convey his thesis without fail.

Lit 101 - Essay #1, Rewrite

Darlene McCoy
Jody Greene
Lit 101
31 January 2011

Concepts, Employed

    In his essay, Creation and the Other, Derek Attridge argues that, "Creation is both an act and an event, both something that is done intentionally by an effort of the will and something that happens without warning to a passive, though alert, consciousness" (26). To reach his conclusion, he defines two concepts: the other, and the idioculture. He then employs the two concepts to explain his overall argument.
    The first part of Attridge's essay contains the definition of the idea of the other, "that which is, at a given moment, outside the horizon provided by the culture for thinking, understanding, imagining, feeling, perceiving" (19). It is necessary for the reader to understand the idea and workings of the other, because the other is used in the process of explaining Attridge's thesis. In this paragraph, Attridge also writes on how the other operates. He states that the other is something that is just out of grasp of the would-be creator, and that it can only operate within the materials present in the creative mind. It must probe the limits of that mind (22). Attridge gives this information because it will become relevant when he explains his thesis later in the essay.
    The second subsection of Attridge's essay deals with the concept of the idioculture. He begins by defining "culture" in the way that he will use it. Then, after clearing up his idea of culture for the sake of clarity, he introduces idioculture as, "the name for the totality of the cultural codes constituting a subject, at a given time, as an overdetermined, self-contradictory system that manifests itself materially in a host of ways" (22). He explains idioculture a bit further, "The complexity of a cultural field or an idioculture is something we can barley fathom; it is certainly not something to which we can achieve discreet access," in the hopes that the reader will retain the additional information, for he will need to recall it later (22).
    After Attridge defines the two previously mentioned concepts, he commences explaining his thesis in the third component of the essay. The process of creation begins with a human sitting down and beginning to write. He wills himself into the creative mindset, and labors, which Attridge then defines as an act. He then encounters the other, which reforges his prior knowledge into new knowledge. Attridge defines this as an event. Both are components of creation, one needs the other in order to function. The other cannot be encountered if the human does not will himself into the creative mindset, the act, but creation cannot take place until the other comes to him at a certain point in time, the event. Without the definitions, the thesis would continue to cause confusion. Yet, one loophole remains without further explanation -- where does the other come from? Attridge draws upon the previously retained information presented in the earlier sections of the text. Because humans do not have the capacity to fully comprehend their idioculture, there are cracks in their minds. The other creeps into these cracks, and lies in wait until its encounter with said human. Without the retained information, this once loophole could not be fixed, but because Attridge implemented it, there are no holes in his argument. The patching up of loopholes and the use of defined concepts make his thesis clear and irrefutable.

Lit 101 - Short Assignment #1

Darlene McCoy
Jody Greene
Lit 101
January 24 2011
Poetry on Papyrus or Paper, Written by Pen or Pencil?
    Some poetry defies time. Some poetry reads in a foreign language. Some people, brave souls, translate old, foreign, poetry. Each translator brings different aspects to their work, each edits a word or phrase in some way that is appealing to their mind, each gives the piece a materiality that they, not the author, created. Two souls, John J. Winkler and Anne Carson, braved the translation process, and developed unique translations of "Fragment 1," a poem written by the ancient Greek poetess, Sappho. While the meanings derived from each translation more or less embody one another, the materiality of the text creates a subtle difference between the two.
    John J. Winkler translated "Fragment 1" in 1990; Anne Carson did so in 2004. In Winkler's translation, he uses a more formal tone than Carson. Lines 3-4 of Winkler consist of "do not tame my spirit, great lady, with pain and sorrow. But / come to me." The phrase expresses the voice of the poem's need of Aphrodite's aid in words that relate more to Greek culture. Carson's lines break differently, so the "equivalent" phrase occurs in lines 2-4, "I beg you, / do not break with hard pains, / O lady, my heart." This phrase expresses the more modern, and personal notion of the idiomatic idea of breaking a heart. Winkler uses the words "divine" and "goddess" in his translation, which create a distance between the poem's voice and the Gods and a feeling of formality in the poem itself - making it more of an address to Aphrodite. Carson employs a more casual word choice, choosing words such as "crazy" and "birds" for her translation. It lacks the more elaborate description of Aphrodite found in Winkler's. The more casual words lend a romantic sense to the poem. It becomes more of a soft, casual, love poem written by a woman in pursuit rather than a formal address to the Gods, written for the pure epicness of the event. Feminine pronouns find themselves embedded in each translation - but one more than the other. Winkler's translation holds to a singular "her," used to denote the poem's voice's beloved. In traditional Greek culture, "the identification of the gender of the beloved, the one now pursued, is delayed until the very last word of the penultimate stanza, etheloisa," the singular "her" follows Greek culture (DuBois 9). Carson's sixth stanza overflows with six uses of the word, "she," which alludes to the idea that the voice of the poem's beloved is a woman, and clearly not a man. This almost overuse of the word "she" implies that Sappho was more than a mere poetess - she was a woman with real feelings, a living being. Winkler breaks the poem's lines in a different manner than Carson does. Winkler's structure forms a rectangle, making it look more modern and classical. It also confines the poem to a set space, and disallows the reader freedom to think between the lines. Carson divides the poem into eight stanzas, each separated by space, as if to signify the space between stanzas on the original papyrus it was written on. The space gives the reader some time to digest each stanza's meaning.
    Though Winkler and Carson translated "Fragment 1" only fourteen years apart, the differences in the materiality of the text create different feelings and meaning for the reader. They also form alternate views of Sappho's character. Winkler's translation defines her as a Greek poetess, and Carson's defines her as a woman lusting after another. The materiality of each translation changes the meaning of the text, and with each translated translation, the mere paper each is written on will continue to do so.

Lit 101 - Essay #1, Summary of a Critical Argument

Darlene McCoy
Jody Greene
LIT 101
19 Janurary 2011

An Alien Encounter - Explained!

     When asked, "How in the world did you come up with such a tale?" many an author would reply, "I'm not sure, I just wrote it." If an individual could just "create," if he could just draw from his knowledge and articulate it in a certain way, the most learned man in the world should have an abundance of works around the globe. Yet, he does not. The process of creation must contain an unknown catalyst that allows one author to be more creative, chilling, or enticing than another. Creation must encompass more than the devising and execution of a plan.
    Thoughts, like a butterfly's wings, flutter in and out of one's conscious; they depart just as soon as the mind can grasp them. These fluttering thoughts - identified by Derek Attridge as the other, pose a possible explanation for the process of creation. He defines the other as, "that which is at a given moment, outside the horizon provided by the culture for thinking, understanding, imagining, feeling, perceiving" (19). The other does not displace old ideas, it simply reworks them into ideas that are essentially the same; but different because it has influenced them. The other requires the creator to think in an uncommon fashion, thus an encounter with it occurs only when the being enters another state of mind. He must be passive, unaware of his encounter, but alert to his mind. Finally evoking the other may emerge from many failed attempts at doing so. Unlike his regular thoughts, the creator cannot command the other's presence. The other separates itself from a being's natural thought process, but somehow relates to his individual. If the other fails to relate to the individual, the other ceases to exist, because the individual could not possibly create something out of nothing. The other materializes from a being's knowledge, and is the reworking of that knowledge, so it cannot be entirely foreign.
     Every mind contains its own unique other. Where does this "being of thought" come from? Are humans without the capability to fully comprehend their own knowledge? Attridge explains his theory on the creation of the other in an attempt to answer these questions.He begins by stating that each person possesses an individual other because each person possess an individual idioculture. Idioculture is "the name for the totality of the cultural codes constituting a subject, at a given time, as an overdetermined, self-contradictory system that manifests itself materially in a host of ways" (22). Basically, an idioculture embodies an individual's thoughts about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness at a given time; it emerges into the world in different forms - art, literature, speech - anything. An idioculture is unfathomable in size - so unfathomable in fact, that human minds can only perpetrate a fraction of it at any given time. A fraction of a wall would not be the most effective at keeping foreigners out, and because perpetrated human idioculture is fractional, the other can seep through the cracks, and into thought. The moment at which the other enters conscious thought is an event, a single happening. It is also an act - because the will of the individual must make the mind alert and attentive in order for the discovery of the other to take place. Derek Attridge concludes his theory with, "Creation is both an act and an event, both something that is done intentionally by an effort of the will and something that happens without warning to a passive, though alert, consciousness" (26).

I really dislike the cliche about butterflies. Hah. Too lazy to really fuck with it though...