Honestly. I like my blog having stats.
It makes me happy. I like to know that not just my friends read my stuff.
/shrug
Monday, January 23, 2012
LIT 103A - Paper #1
This is really colloquial. Don't think I'll get docked for it; nor do I really care. XD
We had to translate Spenser to... something and then explain our choices.
We had to translate Spenser to... something and then explain our choices.
Darlene McCoy
Michael Ursell
LIT 103A
23 January 2012
From Spenser to Valley Girl
Oh em gee[1], Cuddie, stop being depressed,
So we may fish for fine dudes to follow,
So we may pass this endless time in bliss.
You were like, so used to living the life,
The wet t-shirt contest[2] champion, that's you!
Now you keep life in you, and it, like, suffers.
Piers, I have tried so hard to live this life,
But like, all my t-shirts have ripped and worn:
And like, all my attractiveness is spent,
I've gotten a few boys, but gained a name[3].
Yielding myself makes life unfulfilling,
And like, wet games no longer numb the pain.
I will not participate in another frolic,
To indulge those boys in my youthful gifts,
Piers, tell me: What good does that do for me?
They take all the pleasure, I all the pain.
I relinquish the goods[4], and the boys come:
Like, what good may Cuddie gain; doing this?
Translating Edmund Spenser's “October” of the Shepherad's Calender into a different, stylized form is quite the task. I took great care in my translation processes and gave each of my choices considerable thought.
I understood lines 1-18 of “October” to be a person expressing their anxiety about writing poetry, and questioning if writing poetry is a way to live one's life. I also understood from the rest of the poem that the creation of poetry is innate to human nature.
I chose to translate Spenser's archaic language into a dialect of English that I find a bit archaic - Valley Girl Speak! My use of "like," "so," dudes," and "Oh em gee" are all colloquialisms found in Valley Girl Speak, and I am using them to represent Spenser's additional "y"s and "e"s, found in his archaic English.
Since I decided to translate Spenser's work into Valley Girl Speak, I found that two valley girls discussing if writing poetry is meaningful in life does not comply with what I would imagine two valley girls discussing on a daily basis. They needed to be discussing something relevant to their lives, for the shepherds in “October” did so. To remedy this - I decided to translate a discussion of poetry and creativity into a discussion of sex and sexuality. It seemed more fitting to me - and it is not so much of a stretch. Creativity is innate to human nature; as is sexuality. Writing poetry points to a Golden Age, where neither war nor industry rules the workings of the world, and in Edenic images of the Golden Age, portrayals of sexual freedom and fornication abound.
In Spenser's poem, he uses diction that evokes writing or poetic imagery such as, "rhymes," "ridles," and "Muse." I decided to use diction that would convey sexual imagery; mostly through the use of double entendres. Double entendres are not apparent in Spenser's poem, but I decided to take some liberties, for my translation is more modern, and the comedic value in the double entendres represents the change in culture from Spenser's time to the present.
One of the few elements of Spenser's poem I decided to keep was his form. This poem is all in pentameter (except for line 6; it is 11 syllables, as it is in Spenser's original), for I feel that verse has the power to amplify a discussion, because it stands out from colloquial prose. While the diction of this poem is rather amusing, the subject matter is graver. A questioning of performing sexual acts and sexuality is one that many a person goes through - and is extremely important to a person's development, especially in the society of the present. A discussion of writing poetry and creativity was important in Spenser's time, for why would generally uneducated shepherds have thoughts on the subject matter otherwise? And furthermore: why would Spenser immortalize their discussion in his verse if it was not a well-discussed thought in his society?
I hope that my translation of “October” will make it more accessible to more people, for the language has been modernized and made colloquial, and that it will raise a discussion about sexuality, as I feel Spenser's poem facilitated discussions about creativity. My translation changes the subject matter discussion, but I believe that the values given to poetry could be attributed to sex as well. My changes, when read with the original, highlight these analogous instances. I also hope that a reader of my translation enjoys themselves - for I enjoyed translating this work and would love to share a laugh with whoever decides to read it!
[1] “Oh em gee” is the pronouncing of each letter of “OMG”; an acronym used in the sending of text via cellular device, meaning, “Oh my God!”
[2] A “wet t-shirt contest” is a contest in which women wear thin t-shirts and then are sprayed with water, in order for their breasts to protrude behind the near-transparent cloth.
[3] Name, in this context, should connote, “slut,” or “sexually promiscuous young woman.”
[4] “The goods” is a common slang term used for the sexually pleasurable aesthetics of a woman’s body.
LIT102 - Paper #1
I think this one is okay. Dunno. Translation theory is hard to work with.
Darlene McCoy
Susan Gillman
LIT102 - Translation Theory
19 January 2012
Translation - the Language Border Assassin
José Martí, a Cuban national hero, wrote his famous essay, "Nuestra America" in 1891. Since then, many translators have undertaken the task of conveying his message through language barriers; namely the barrier between Spanish and English. Elinor Randall, translator, and her editor Phillip S. Foner performed the task in 1977, and Esther Allen took it upon herself to do the same in 2002. A modern Western mind might not find much difference in the translations - for when read casually, their meanings are more or less equal, which suffice for a casual reading. On the other hand, a further look into the texts reveals some interesting little tidbits that might shake up any notions of equality between the two translations. Not to say that one translation is perhaps better than the other - just that they are two different works.
"Nuestra America / Our America" focuses on many ideas. One is: Martí calls for his people to reject European and US politics and culture. He declares that his people should value the naturality of their lands and culture, for they are just as wonderful as their counterparts.
When examined for their fidelity as well as their fluidity, the translator of each translation becomes visible, and the works themselves become distinctly different. In a section of his essay, Randall translated Martí's original word to "plainsman." Allen translated it to "gaucho." These two words roughly translate to cowboy - but a "plainsman" is a North American cowboy, and a "gaucho" is a South American cowboy. This slight difference begins to shed light on the differences in the translation - Randall seems to be more loyal to her English audience, and Allen to Martí. "Plainsman" reads more easily to an English speaker than "gaucho" does - it is fluid - for a native English speaker should have no issue with understanding the word's meaning. Yet, "plainsman" does not convey the same meaning as "gaucho" does in the context of Martí's essay. "Gaucho" remains loyal to Martí's ideas presented in the essay; it is natural and perfectly fine as it is in its original form. Yet, "gaucho" alienates an English reader, making the translation more difficult to read. One might say that Randall values fluidity over fidelity, but if her intentions in creating her translation were to create a semantically fluid text for English speakers, it is clear that she values both. On the other hand, one might say that Allen values fidelity over fluidity, but if her intentions in creating her translation were to create a text that loyally conveys Martí's ideas to English speakers, she too, values both fluidity and fidelity. Who can say that one translation is better than the other? They are simply different works that convey different ideas.
While "gaucho" and "plainsman" translated to the same semantic meaning, another original word of Martí's essay translated to two words that have different semantic meanings: stagnant (Randall) and sluggish (Allen). Stagnant refers to a fluid in a vessel that is at rest, while sluggish refers to people who are inclined to be slow or slothful. These meanings are similar, but their innate difference points to a problem in translation: not all words are translatable, because one language might not have a word that can semantically translate to a word from another language. Why else would each translator choose a similar, yet different word? It is unreasonable to believe that one of the translators was more upset at the scene of translation so she decided to be more negative with her translation. The translation machine is not a consistent function, nor will it ever be, because the inputs do not always produce the same outputs. Therefore, each original work put into the translation machine will come out different than the one entered before it, making the outputs separate entities.
A translator may intentionally mistranslate a word for some purpose. In Allen's translation she uses the word "mestizo." Randall uses "halfbreed." "Mestizo" is a Latin American word that semantically translates to "halfblood," which is similar to "halfbreed." Yet, "halfbreed" carries an unpleasant connotation. Say if, Elinor Randall had an intense hatred for Martí's people, she could use the word "halfbreed" to connote negative ideas about them. If this were true, then, a reading of her translation could change because of one little word! A mistranslation can change an entire reading of a work - making it different from other translations.
It is important to note that a translation does not solely depend on the translator. Language itself complicates translation, for language transforms over time. For example: both translators use "Parisian" when referring to a person who hails from Paris in their translation. Yet, as Martí was not fond of French ideas, if he lived today, he might use the term "les parigots," which is a derogatory term to describe a person from Paris. Both terms, "Parisian" and "les parigots" mean a person from Paris, but "les parigots" carries some rather nasty connotations with it. "Les parigots" did not exist in Martí's day - he could have never used it; but the fact that it exists now is evidence for the transformation of language over time. Because language transforms over time, a translator cannot know the exact historical context and semantic meaning of a word written an amount of time ago. This lack of information can create difference in translation, thus different works.
Why does it matter that a translation is a bit different from another? Translation is power. Slight differences in translations can mean big changes for those who read them. A country shows its dominance by forcing others to learn its language. In Allen's translation, Spanish words are simply intergraded into the work. English words are italicized and capitalized. The italicization sets off the English words, making them stand out and seem foreign. The capitalization of "Government" and "Creator" imply that they are English words that convey an idea of "government." In her translation, though it is in English, the dominant language is Spanish, which adheres to Martí's ideas presented in the essay. In Randall's translation, Spanish words are not used, and English words, specifically "government" and "creator" are engrained into the work - they are neither capitalized nor italicized. In this translation, English is the dominant language on all counts. Therefore, it is important to note differences in translation and to give each translation of a work its own existence, because translation is power, and power must be held in check so it is not abused!
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.
I Miss...
The urge to write about how much I'm fucking crazy about someone.
It's not there right now. ._.
I dunno how I feel about anything. Bleeeeh.
It's not there right now. ._.
I dunno how I feel about anything. Bleeeeh.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Single
also entitled: Sexy and She Knows It, or: Smart and She Knows It.
hehe!
SO, BLOGGER, HOW YOU BEEN DOIN', BABY?
I posted on Tumblr like a week ago that I wasn't okay with confessing my heart on the internet. I still dunno how I feel about it anymore, BUT:
I need to speak. I need to write Goddamnit!
I also need to let some people know what the hell is going ooooon~
'Kay, so;
Ryan and I are not dating anymore. We have broken up.
We're still friends. And we're still having a hard time getting through the break-up, but as friends, we can support each other. While that does make it a little harder to deal with, too, I've seen how we function in a relationship, and I made the decision that we don't function as well as I need us to for both of us to stay healthy. Therefore, we are no longer together.
This doesn't mean that I hate him. In fact, I gotta say, I'm really proud of him for handling this as he is right now. He's trying to be strong, so we can be friends. I hope he can keep this up - Ryan is def a person that I do not want to lose. Yeah, he's a goofball, but that only prevents us from being in a romantic relationship. It doesn't prevent us from being friends nor does it prevent us from loving one another. I tell people I love them all the time - because there's all different kinds of love, and any kind of love felt should be expressed. I 100% still love Ryan. We're just not dating anymore. This decision also does not rule out a future for Ryan and I - it just rules out a future in the present time. (If that makes sense.)
Either way: that's what happened between me and Ryan. I'm obviously getting to be more and more okay with this, considering I'm solidifying my feelings in writing.
I want to address another "mystery" of happenings surrounding me: Jocab Victario.
So, um, one of the reasons why I fell so rapidly out of love with Ryan is because I started to fall for Jacob. He has grown so much, and it's not like he's an unattractive dude, so like, why would I not fall for the person who pretty much understands me better than my mother? The issue is here, though, that I don't know if I fell for Jacob for comfort only. I need crazy passion in a relationship. I'll tell ya right now -- sex is important to me -- and I dunno if he and I can connect on that level as well as I'd like to. It's weird. But that's all I want to say on this. Talking about sexuality makes me blush! I'm unsure of my feelings for him -- unsure meaning I'm not 100%, y'know? Shit is sketchy.
The one thing I am sure of is right now, I don't want to make plans for the "future." I want to live my life right now. I want to meet new people, have new experiences, and do new things (not hard drugs <.
SO: now I'll explain the other titles.
Sexy and She Knows It: lately, I've had a huge surge of self-confidence. I gotta tell ya - me running around in just a bra and cardigan is not a normal Darlene thing. That is a confident and hot as fuck Darlene thing. I'm super down with this. My life has been a whole lot more pleasant since I decided I don't look like a disfigured human being. I'm not afraid of my body anymore - I just fear the power it has over other human beings, 'cause oh baby, I like to abuse me some power. Hahahahahah XD
Smart and She Knows It: So now that I'm more or less okay with my physical appearance, I've become super self-conscious about my intelligence. At dinner the other night, for example, a few of the boys (Can you guess who?) made me feel like I didn't belong in college because I was too stupid to be here. Luckily, I am aware that people do think I'm smart, and just needed to call upon the Facebook Gods to remedy my rather depressed mood. And guess what? I think I'm smart, too. Why? 'Cause I am Goddamnit. I'm smart enough to realize that life isn't about what TV shows you watch, what music you listen to, what books you read, nor any other creation of humanity that humans can use to judge others by. Life is about enjoying it. Guess what? I like Legally Blonde. I will always like Legally Blonde. I will never disown that movie, because it was a part of me growing up as an individual. Whenever I see that film, I think of the bliss I enjoyed when I was a young girl. There's nothing fucking wrong with that, y'hear, world? There is nothing wrong with being happy. And even if I enjoyed Legally Blonde for complete asinine reasons, does that really matter? Newp. Not really. All that matters is that I had a good time. Now -- I'm not saying that having a good time takes precedence over everything in life. Self-discipline is super fucking important. But when all of the day's work is done -- shouldn't you have the right to sit down and do whatever the hell you want without some jackass judging you or calling you stupid for it? Yeah, you, jackass: fuck you. Please accuse me of being naive when your statement is the utter propagation of naivety, so I can enjoy a nice chuckle. Unless you just think the point of life is to be miserable. In that case, I just pity you, you sad, sad soul.
Either way: I'm a smarticle (a smart particle!).
Also: I'm booksmart. I love my major, and have a massive passion for studying literature. Just because I have extra work to do because I didn't receive all the culture I should have as a kid doesn't make me stupid. It just makes me an underdog. And you know what else it makes me? Awesome. Because I'm going to succeed without all of the other shit other people had. AND I'm probably going to do better than them. So fuck you again, you jackass trying to bring me down, f-u-c-k y-o-u. Laugh at me if you please, darlin', but when you're holed up in your room wallowing in your own self misery and pity, I'll be holed up in mine writing a fantastic book report, listening to bad pop and enjoying every fucking minute of it.
Don't hate me because you can't enjoy life like I can. Learn to enjoy life your own way, dumbass. Jealously is one of the worst -- and arguably most unproductive -- emotions, so why don't you just toss it out the window? It's worthless.
Erg and Steve went out with Casey! What! He's a butt.
(Note here: he could've gone out with anyone and still been a butt.)
UGH.
Word vomit is best vomit.
hehe!
SO, BLOGGER, HOW YOU BEEN DOIN', BABY?
I posted on Tumblr like a week ago that I wasn't okay with confessing my heart on the internet. I still dunno how I feel about it anymore, BUT:
I need to speak. I need to write Goddamnit!
I also need to let some people know what the hell is going ooooon~
'Kay, so;
Ryan and I are not dating anymore. We have broken up.
We're still friends. And we're still having a hard time getting through the break-up, but as friends, we can support each other. While that does make it a little harder to deal with, too, I've seen how we function in a relationship, and I made the decision that we don't function as well as I need us to for both of us to stay healthy. Therefore, we are no longer together.
This doesn't mean that I hate him. In fact, I gotta say, I'm really proud of him for handling this as he is right now. He's trying to be strong, so we can be friends. I hope he can keep this up - Ryan is def a person that I do not want to lose. Yeah, he's a goofball, but that only prevents us from being in a romantic relationship. It doesn't prevent us from being friends nor does it prevent us from loving one another. I tell people I love them all the time - because there's all different kinds of love, and any kind of love felt should be expressed. I 100% still love Ryan. We're just not dating anymore. This decision also does not rule out a future for Ryan and I - it just rules out a future in the present time. (If that makes sense.)
Either way: that's what happened between me and Ryan. I'm obviously getting to be more and more okay with this, considering I'm solidifying my feelings in writing.
I want to address another "mystery" of happenings surrounding me: Jocab Victario.
So, um, one of the reasons why I fell so rapidly out of love with Ryan is because I started to fall for Jacob. He has grown so much, and it's not like he's an unattractive dude, so like, why would I not fall for the person who pretty much understands me better than my mother? The issue is here, though, that I don't know if I fell for Jacob for comfort only. I need crazy passion in a relationship. I'll tell ya right now -- sex is important to me -- and I dunno if he and I can connect on that level as well as I'd like to. It's weird. But that's all I want to say on this. Talking about sexuality makes me blush! I'm unsure of my feelings for him -- unsure meaning I'm not 100%, y'know? Shit is sketchy.
The one thing I am sure of is right now, I don't want to make plans for the "future." I want to live my life right now. I want to meet new people, have new experiences, and do new things (not hard drugs <.
SO: now I'll explain the other titles.
Sexy and She Knows It: lately, I've had a huge surge of self-confidence. I gotta tell ya - me running around in just a bra and cardigan is not a normal Darlene thing. That is a confident and hot as fuck Darlene thing. I'm super down with this. My life has been a whole lot more pleasant since I decided I don't look like a disfigured human being. I'm not afraid of my body anymore - I just fear the power it has over other human beings, 'cause oh baby, I like to abuse me some power. Hahahahahah XD
Smart and She Knows It: So now that I'm more or less okay with my physical appearance, I've become super self-conscious about my intelligence. At dinner the other night, for example, a few of the boys (Can you guess who?) made me feel like I didn't belong in college because I was too stupid to be here. Luckily, I am aware that people do think I'm smart, and just needed to call upon the Facebook Gods to remedy my rather depressed mood. And guess what? I think I'm smart, too. Why? 'Cause I am Goddamnit. I'm smart enough to realize that life isn't about what TV shows you watch, what music you listen to, what books you read, nor any other creation of humanity that humans can use to judge others by. Life is about enjoying it. Guess what? I like Legally Blonde. I will always like Legally Blonde. I will never disown that movie, because it was a part of me growing up as an individual. Whenever I see that film, I think of the bliss I enjoyed when I was a young girl. There's nothing fucking wrong with that, y'hear, world? There is nothing wrong with being happy. And even if I enjoyed Legally Blonde for complete asinine reasons, does that really matter? Newp. Not really. All that matters is that I had a good time. Now -- I'm not saying that having a good time takes precedence over everything in life. Self-discipline is super fucking important. But when all of the day's work is done -- shouldn't you have the right to sit down and do whatever the hell you want without some jackass judging you or calling you stupid for it? Yeah, you, jackass: fuck you. Please accuse me of being naive when your statement is the utter propagation of naivety, so I can enjoy a nice chuckle. Unless you just think the point of life is to be miserable. In that case, I just pity you, you sad, sad soul.
Either way: I'm a smarticle (a smart particle!).
Also: I'm booksmart. I love my major, and have a massive passion for studying literature. Just because I have extra work to do because I didn't receive all the culture I should have as a kid doesn't make me stupid. It just makes me an underdog. And you know what else it makes me? Awesome. Because I'm going to succeed without all of the other shit other people had. AND I'm probably going to do better than them. So fuck you again, you jackass trying to bring me down, f-u-c-k y-o-u. Laugh at me if you please, darlin', but when you're holed up in your room wallowing in your own self misery and pity, I'll be holed up in mine writing a fantastic book report, listening to bad pop and enjoying every fucking minute of it.
Don't hate me because you can't enjoy life like I can. Learn to enjoy life your own way, dumbass. Jealously is one of the worst -- and arguably most unproductive -- emotions, so why don't you just toss it out the window? It's worthless.
Erg and Steve went out with Casey! What! He's a butt.
(Note here: he could've gone out with anyone and still been a butt.)
UGH.
Word vomit is best vomit.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Friday, January 13, 2012
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Do You Know How to Double Entendre?
There's gonna be a lot of 'em coming up in the next blog posts.
You might understand where they are
but do you understand what they mean?
Or maybe there won't be any.
And you'll just be sitting there, thinking, wondering, and being like:
How do I even spell Darlene?
And I'll be sitting here, chuckling to myself, because I am a master of double entendres.
You might understand where they are
but do you understand what they mean?
Or maybe there won't be any.
And you'll just be sitting there, thinking, wondering, and being like:
How do I even spell Darlene?
And I'll be sitting here, chuckling to myself, because I am a master of double entendres.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
I Don't Know
...if was ready to give up on him.
I miss him so bad.
What is wrong with me, and what is going through my head?
I can't stop crying. Everything, everything reminds me of him.
I love you so much, Ryan. I'm so sorry.
I miss him so bad.
What is wrong with me, and what is going through my head?
I can't stop crying. Everything, everything reminds me of him.
I love you so much, Ryan. I'm so sorry.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
New URL
Changed my site's URL. I want to post freely again. There will be no more links to Tumblr or Facebook to my blog.
It's time to start anew, my blogging friend!
It's time to start anew, my blogging friend!
Monday, October 31, 2011
LTEL 170C - Essay # 2 Verse and Prose
Darlene McCoy
Michael Ursell
LTEL 170C - Shakespeare
25 October 2011
Verse and Prose - the Effects that Affect
In the great tragedy Romeo and Juliet, Mercutio, a well-born man of Verona, alternates between speaking verse and prose. Shakespeare's choice to use verse or prose on Mercutio's behalf produces an effect. Yet, there is not one "catch all" effect associated with his use of verse, nor one with his use of prose. There are multiple effects that arise by his employment of one or the other. An analysis of a passage of verse and a passage of prose, both spoken by Mercutio, illustrate the number of effects verse and prose can create in the text.
Mercutio speaks the first passage in Act II, Scene 1, Lines 6-21. He calls after Romeo after he abandons the other Montagues in order to speak with Juliet again. He attempts to "conjure" him, as if Romeo were not himself, with images of a fair maid in which he was in love with just a few hours earlier. When Romeo does not answer to his name, the Montagues return home without him. This passage is written in verse.
Benvolio sparks the second passage. He urges Mercutio to retire in worry that they may come upon a conflict with the rival house of Capulet. Mercutio responds haughtily, telling Benvolio that he has no right to defer him from quarreling, because he has so often started pointless quarrels himself. Passage two is written in prose (3.1.15-29).
It is important to note that in each passage, Mercutio is in conversation with a different person. While Mercutio associates himself with both Romeo and Benvolio often, his relationship with either differs from the other, especially in the passages under observation. Mercutio finds Romeo in the world to be his dear friend, and while Benvolio is close with Mercutio as well, he is not as dear as Romeo. To look further into the difference of their relationships, the context in which Mercutio speaks to either needs to be assessed. Mercutio's call after Romeo is a formal plea for his friend to return to the identity that he knows him by. In the specific context of the passage, Romeo is not Romeo; Romeo is not Mercutio's dear friend. Mercutio calls after a man whom he does not know, so naturally, he does so in verse. Alternatively, Mercutio and Benvolio stroll about town while having their conversation. Benvolio never falls out of nor questions his identity in Romeo and Juliet. Therefore, Benvolio is Benvolio; and Mercutio addresses him in the language of chums: prose. This slight discrepancy caused by Shakespeare's use of either verse or prose further alludes to a questioning of identity theme of the play. It also builds upon the idea that because Romeo is be-smitten with love, Romeo is not Romeo.
The tone and subject of each of Mercutio's passages warrants a decision to use either verse or prose. The verse passage contains many words associated with love. Mercutio speaks of Venus and Cupid, and alludes to a tale in which a king decides to marry a beggar-maid just because he loves her. The diction of the passage contains words such as fair, love, dove, and sigh. The whole passage is in iambic pentameter, so the lines, when spoken, flow beautifully and take on a natural rhythm. It would be only natural for Mercutio to speak of the sweeter things in life using sweeter language. The prose passage conveys quite the different feeling. Mercutio gives Benvolio example after example of an instance where he started a quarrel for no reason. His subject is crass, rough, and far from the fairness that adorns the verse passage. He uses words such as "cracking," "meat," and "beaten." Those words are more vulgar and common; therefore Mercutio uses prose to speak of them. The use of verse and prose in these two instances pits the subject of love and the subject of quarreling against each other. Shakespeare's language implies that love is fair, while quarreling is vulgar and crass.
The punctuation or lack thereof in each passage creates an effect. In the verse passage, almost every single line is end-stopped, and there are end-stops mid-line as well. These stops slow the progression of the lines; they demand that the speaker take the time to pause at each stop. After Mercutio speaks in verse, Romeo and Juliet confess their undying love for each other. In contrast, substantially fewer punctuation marks dot the prose passage, causing them to become enjambed. The lack of punctuation accelerates the lines to the point where they seem rushed. After Mercutio speaks his prose passage, he and Benvolio find themselves presented with a conflict with the Capulets. Mercutio loses his life in the ensuing brawl. In Romeo and Juliet, the progression of time is an omnipresent theme. The use of verse or prose here foreshadows a later happening of the play, and further enhances the presence of the progression of time.
Verse is language written in a metric rhythm. Because it is written in a certain way, there are effects that can only take place when a passage is written in verse. Mercutio's verse passage is written in iambic pentameter, meaning that each line should contain ten syllables that alternate between stressed and unstressed sounds. In lines eight through fifteen, Mercuio's lines do not follow the usual order of iambic pentameter. There are indeed ten syllables in each line, but the stressed and unstressed sounds do not alternate as they would normally. Lines eight through fifteen are an example of irregular iambic pentameter. The context of lines eight through fifteen are now quite intriguing: Mercutio speaks of Romeo's irregular identity. The irregular iambic pentameter further emphasizes the point Mercutio makes, because the metric language used follows the same theme as the context of the words themselves. Prose simply cannot do the same as verse in this case; for prose does not follow any specific pattern, so it cannot be irregular.
On the other hand, there are effects of the use of prose that verse cannot accomplish. Verse is regulated speech, while prose allows for a more rapid and less stiff flow of thought. In Mercutio's prose passage, he uses a form of the word quarrel seven times. His passage is only fifteen an a half lines long. He uses the word "quarrel" in almost every other line that he speaks. The constant repetition of a word is not an uncommon occurrence in Romeo and Juliet, and the repetition of a word generally foreshadows its own meaning. This case follows the norm of the play, because just as soon as Mercutio finishes his reply to Benvolio, the Capulets appear and begin a quarrel. It is almost as if because he spoke so quickly and so unregulated that Mercutio invoked a quarrel by repeating the word constantly. While it is possible for verse to repeat a word, it is most uncommon, and generally remains a characteristic of prose. Prose takes the upper hand over verse in this case due to its ability to be more malleable than verse. An author can do whatever he pleases with prose, and it will forever be prose. Verse is only verse if it is written in a metric rhythm. Therefore, an author can repeat a word more naturally if he writes in prose, and the more natural feel of the words convey emotions that seem more genuine. The rigidity of verse makes verse passages seem too over-thought at times, which can take away from the emotion the passage may be attempting to conduct.
Shakespeare's use of verse and prose in Romeo and Juliet produces no single effect. On the other hand, his use of either works with the context of the passages to produce multiple meanings, and to promote themes or ideas of the text. There are some effects that prose can produce that verse cannot, and some effects that verse can produce that prose cannot, but Shakespeare's use of both in contrasting passages allows him to compare the ideas present in them without blatantly stating so. By examining these passages in this fashion, it only seems sensible to conclude that Shakespeare chose to use either verse or prose for a specific reason, and that the reason varies from passage to passage, from character to character, or from event to event.
Michael Ursell
LTEL 170C - Shakespeare
25 October 2011
Verse and Prose - the Effects that Affect
In the great tragedy Romeo and Juliet, Mercutio, a well-born man of Verona, alternates between speaking verse and prose. Shakespeare's choice to use verse or prose on Mercutio's behalf produces an effect. Yet, there is not one "catch all" effect associated with his use of verse, nor one with his use of prose. There are multiple effects that arise by his employment of one or the other. An analysis of a passage of verse and a passage of prose, both spoken by Mercutio, illustrate the number of effects verse and prose can create in the text.
Mercutio speaks the first passage in Act II, Scene 1, Lines 6-21. He calls after Romeo after he abandons the other Montagues in order to speak with Juliet again. He attempts to "conjure" him, as if Romeo were not himself, with images of a fair maid in which he was in love with just a few hours earlier. When Romeo does not answer to his name, the Montagues return home without him. This passage is written in verse.
Benvolio sparks the second passage. He urges Mercutio to retire in worry that they may come upon a conflict with the rival house of Capulet. Mercutio responds haughtily, telling Benvolio that he has no right to defer him from quarreling, because he has so often started pointless quarrels himself. Passage two is written in prose (3.1.15-29).
It is important to note that in each passage, Mercutio is in conversation with a different person. While Mercutio associates himself with both Romeo and Benvolio often, his relationship with either differs from the other, especially in the passages under observation. Mercutio finds Romeo in the world to be his dear friend, and while Benvolio is close with Mercutio as well, he is not as dear as Romeo. To look further into the difference of their relationships, the context in which Mercutio speaks to either needs to be assessed. Mercutio's call after Romeo is a formal plea for his friend to return to the identity that he knows him by. In the specific context of the passage, Romeo is not Romeo; Romeo is not Mercutio's dear friend. Mercutio calls after a man whom he does not know, so naturally, he does so in verse. Alternatively, Mercutio and Benvolio stroll about town while having their conversation. Benvolio never falls out of nor questions his identity in Romeo and Juliet. Therefore, Benvolio is Benvolio; and Mercutio addresses him in the language of chums: prose. This slight discrepancy caused by Shakespeare's use of either verse or prose further alludes to a questioning of identity theme of the play. It also builds upon the idea that because Romeo is be-smitten with love, Romeo is not Romeo.
The tone and subject of each of Mercutio's passages warrants a decision to use either verse or prose. The verse passage contains many words associated with love. Mercutio speaks of Venus and Cupid, and alludes to a tale in which a king decides to marry a beggar-maid just because he loves her. The diction of the passage contains words such as fair, love, dove, and sigh. The whole passage is in iambic pentameter, so the lines, when spoken, flow beautifully and take on a natural rhythm. It would be only natural for Mercutio to speak of the sweeter things in life using sweeter language. The prose passage conveys quite the different feeling. Mercutio gives Benvolio example after example of an instance where he started a quarrel for no reason. His subject is crass, rough, and far from the fairness that adorns the verse passage. He uses words such as "cracking," "meat," and "beaten." Those words are more vulgar and common; therefore Mercutio uses prose to speak of them. The use of verse and prose in these two instances pits the subject of love and the subject of quarreling against each other. Shakespeare's language implies that love is fair, while quarreling is vulgar and crass.
The punctuation or lack thereof in each passage creates an effect. In the verse passage, almost every single line is end-stopped, and there are end-stops mid-line as well. These stops slow the progression of the lines; they demand that the speaker take the time to pause at each stop. After Mercutio speaks in verse, Romeo and Juliet confess their undying love for each other. In contrast, substantially fewer punctuation marks dot the prose passage, causing them to become enjambed. The lack of punctuation accelerates the lines to the point where they seem rushed. After Mercutio speaks his prose passage, he and Benvolio find themselves presented with a conflict with the Capulets. Mercutio loses his life in the ensuing brawl. In Romeo and Juliet, the progression of time is an omnipresent theme. The use of verse or prose here foreshadows a later happening of the play, and further enhances the presence of the progression of time.
Verse is language written in a metric rhythm. Because it is written in a certain way, there are effects that can only take place when a passage is written in verse. Mercutio's verse passage is written in iambic pentameter, meaning that each line should contain ten syllables that alternate between stressed and unstressed sounds. In lines eight through fifteen, Mercuio's lines do not follow the usual order of iambic pentameter. There are indeed ten syllables in each line, but the stressed and unstressed sounds do not alternate as they would normally. Lines eight through fifteen are an example of irregular iambic pentameter. The context of lines eight through fifteen are now quite intriguing: Mercutio speaks of Romeo's irregular identity. The irregular iambic pentameter further emphasizes the point Mercutio makes, because the metric language used follows the same theme as the context of the words themselves. Prose simply cannot do the same as verse in this case; for prose does not follow any specific pattern, so it cannot be irregular.
On the other hand, there are effects of the use of prose that verse cannot accomplish. Verse is regulated speech, while prose allows for a more rapid and less stiff flow of thought. In Mercutio's prose passage, he uses a form of the word quarrel seven times. His passage is only fifteen an a half lines long. He uses the word "quarrel" in almost every other line that he speaks. The constant repetition of a word is not an uncommon occurrence in Romeo and Juliet, and the repetition of a word generally foreshadows its own meaning. This case follows the norm of the play, because just as soon as Mercutio finishes his reply to Benvolio, the Capulets appear and begin a quarrel. It is almost as if because he spoke so quickly and so unregulated that Mercutio invoked a quarrel by repeating the word constantly. While it is possible for verse to repeat a word, it is most uncommon, and generally remains a characteristic of prose. Prose takes the upper hand over verse in this case due to its ability to be more malleable than verse. An author can do whatever he pleases with prose, and it will forever be prose. Verse is only verse if it is written in a metric rhythm. Therefore, an author can repeat a word more naturally if he writes in prose, and the more natural feel of the words convey emotions that seem more genuine. The rigidity of verse makes verse passages seem too over-thought at times, which can take away from the emotion the passage may be attempting to conduct.
Shakespeare's use of verse and prose in Romeo and Juliet produces no single effect. On the other hand, his use of either works with the context of the passages to produce multiple meanings, and to promote themes or ideas of the text. There are some effects that prose can produce that verse cannot, and some effects that verse can produce that prose cannot, but Shakespeare's use of both in contrasting passages allows him to compare the ideas present in them without blatantly stating so. By examining these passages in this fashion, it only seems sensible to conclude that Shakespeare chose to use either verse or prose for a specific reason, and that the reason varies from passage to passage, from character to character, or from event to event.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
LTEL 170C - Essay #1 Double Entendres
Darlene McCoy
Michael Ursell
LTEL 170C - Shakespeare
9 October 2011
A first interpretation developed by Shakespeare's choice of words constructs the idea that "spirit" may be synonymous with "wit" - meaning one's ability to write poetry. The words "verse" and "write" further edge on the reader to interpret the line in this way, for they are associated with the act of writing. Line 5, "Was it his spirit, by spirits taught to write" invokes the image of the Muse, a spirit, as a bestower of wit. Furthermore, the phrase "above a mortal pitch" implies that the wit is above that of human capacity, moreso divine, and thus only available because the Muse bequeathed it upon a mortal. Referring to the spirit, the lines continue, "No, neither he, nor his compeers by night / Giving him aid, my verse astonished." The Muse visits her mortal during the night, and this association only bolsters the idea that "spirit" is synonymous with "wit." If the reader of Sonnet 86 interprets the word "spirit" in this way, the poem depicts a man who is so sure of his love for a beloved that the power the Muse may bestow upon his rivals does not alarm him in the least.
A second interpretation of the word "spirit" in Sonnet 86 may elicit a darker reading of the poem. A "spirit" is a supernatural being or personality frequently conceived as troublesome, terrifying, or hostile to mankind. The word "tomb" provides for the morbid atmosphere of this reading. The phrase "above a mortal pitch" implies that one is no longer mortal, which could possibly mean that they are a spirit returning from the dead. The emergence of the word "dead" at the end of the line aids in the creation of the idea of a spirit returning from the dead. The word "ghost" found in line nine further implies that an apparition of some sort visits the speaker's rival poets. Why an apparition, though? What's so wrong with rival poets praising the beloved? It is possible that Shakespeare is trying to imply that the "intelligence" gulled to his rivals is an intelligence born of something foul, such as lust. If the reader finds himself reading Sonnet 86 through this interpretation, he finds himself reading a poem about a man whose words shatter under the power of lust, for his beloved looks upon those lustful words more than his own.
A third interpretation of the word "spirit" extracts yet another reading from Sonnet 86. This reading, a bit indelicate, takes on a sexual meaning. The first word to cue a reader in on this reading is "womb," - an important participant in sexual reproduction. "Spirit," in this reading, may mean the ability of one to perform sexual acts. The "spirits" in this reading may be the rival poets that the beloved has learned his "spirit" from. The word "familiar" found in line nine hints that the relationship between the beloved and his visitor(s) may be intimate, thus implying sexual. Line ten, "Which nightly gulls him with intelligence," suggests more innuendo. The word "gull" means to to devour voraciously, and the fact that the visitor is gulling him with intelligence might imply that the visitor is giving him intelligence in the form of sexual performance by indulging in his own desires. If the reader finds himself dabbling in the indelicacies of this interpretation, he reads a poem about a man who fears not what his rivals can do for his beloved sexually, but who is distraught when his beloved goes to them for sexual favors.
These three interpretations of Sonnet 86 are examples of the many different ways a poem can be read, and what a double entendre can do for the overall meaning of a poem. They are also examples of the great care Shakespeare took in choosing his words, and of his everlasting wit. May his spirit live forever in each man that reads his lines!
Michael Ursell
LTEL 170C - Shakespeare
9 October 2011
Shakespeare's Spirit
Scholars attribute William Shakespeare's Sonnets as the embodiment of his spirit through the flow of his pen. Double entendres found in the text expand the amount of meanings his verse can produce and enhance the wit of his work. The word "spirit," encountered twelve times as a noun in The Sonnets, connotates more meanings than those derived at first glance. Specifically, in Sonnet 86 "spirit" found on line five, once in the singular, and once in the plural, produces at least three different meanings, which in turn produces three different interpretations.A first interpretation developed by Shakespeare's choice of words constructs the idea that "spirit" may be synonymous with "wit" - meaning one's ability to write poetry. The words "verse" and "write" further edge on the reader to interpret the line in this way, for they are associated with the act of writing. Line 5, "Was it his spirit, by spirits taught to write" invokes the image of the Muse, a spirit, as a bestower of wit. Furthermore, the phrase "above a mortal pitch" implies that the wit is above that of human capacity, moreso divine, and thus only available because the Muse bequeathed it upon a mortal. Referring to the spirit, the lines continue, "No, neither he, nor his compeers by night / Giving him aid, my verse astonished." The Muse visits her mortal during the night, and this association only bolsters the idea that "spirit" is synonymous with "wit." If the reader of Sonnet 86 interprets the word "spirit" in this way, the poem depicts a man who is so sure of his love for a beloved that the power the Muse may bestow upon his rivals does not alarm him in the least.
A second interpretation of the word "spirit" in Sonnet 86 may elicit a darker reading of the poem. A "spirit" is a supernatural being or personality frequently conceived as troublesome, terrifying, or hostile to mankind. The word "tomb" provides for the morbid atmosphere of this reading. The phrase "above a mortal pitch" implies that one is no longer mortal, which could possibly mean that they are a spirit returning from the dead. The emergence of the word "dead" at the end of the line aids in the creation of the idea of a spirit returning from the dead. The word "ghost" found in line nine further implies that an apparition of some sort visits the speaker's rival poets. Why an apparition, though? What's so wrong with rival poets praising the beloved? It is possible that Shakespeare is trying to imply that the "intelligence" gulled to his rivals is an intelligence born of something foul, such as lust. If the reader finds himself reading Sonnet 86 through this interpretation, he finds himself reading a poem about a man whose words shatter under the power of lust, for his beloved looks upon those lustful words more than his own.
A third interpretation of the word "spirit" extracts yet another reading from Sonnet 86. This reading, a bit indelicate, takes on a sexual meaning. The first word to cue a reader in on this reading is "womb," - an important participant in sexual reproduction. "Spirit," in this reading, may mean the ability of one to perform sexual acts. The "spirits" in this reading may be the rival poets that the beloved has learned his "spirit" from. The word "familiar" found in line nine hints that the relationship between the beloved and his visitor(s) may be intimate, thus implying sexual. Line ten, "Which nightly gulls him with intelligence," suggests more innuendo. The word "gull" means to to devour voraciously, and the fact that the visitor is gulling him with intelligence might imply that the visitor is giving him intelligence in the form of sexual performance by indulging in his own desires. If the reader finds himself dabbling in the indelicacies of this interpretation, he reads a poem about a man who fears not what his rivals can do for his beloved sexually, but who is distraught when his beloved goes to them for sexual favors.
These three interpretations of Sonnet 86 are examples of the many different ways a poem can be read, and what a double entendre can do for the overall meaning of a poem. They are also examples of the great care Shakespeare took in choosing his words, and of his everlasting wit. May his spirit live forever in each man that reads his lines!
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Everything is Going to Be Okay.
We will be strong, and we will carry on.
Life is not too much for us to handle.
There is time to think.
There is time to reflect.
There is time to make a change.
Do not be afraid. It is possible.
Life is not too much for us to handle.
There is time to think.
There is time to reflect.
There is time to make a change.
Do not be afraid. It is possible.
Monday, October 3, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)