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.

Lit 102 Paper #2

Title ultra shamelessly stolen from XKCD. It's just so damn funny!

Darlene McCoy

Susan Gillman

LIT 102

2 February 2012

Translations of "El Desdichado": I’m so Meta, Even This Acronym

Gérard Nerval wrote "El Desdichado" in 1854. Since then, the poem has been translated by T.S. Eliot, Robert Duncan, and A. S. Kline. In their translation, each translator changes codes used to convey meaning, and therefore, the meaning of each translation differs. A theme of loss of meaning runs through the work, and the poem shows the eventuality of death in poetic meaning and the human life cycle.

In the first stanza of the poem, the addresser begins by describing its state of being. It is, in all translations, "the widower" and "the unconsoled/unconsoled/un-consoled." It has lost something dear - and cannot be comforted. In the second stanza, the addresser describes the state of the addressee. It paints the addressee as something that can console and as a flower that pleases its heart. In the third stanza, the addresser begins to have an internal conflict. Its asks of itself if it is more like one being or the counterpart to that being. In the final stanza, the "I" and "you" pronouns that designate the addresser and addressee disappear after the word "crossed/crosst/crossed."

"It" is not a specific term to describe who or what the addresser is in this poem, but it is difficult to determine the addresser-addressee relationship in this poem. The addresser may be either a character in the world of the poem, or a poetic voice. The addressee may be either another character, or the idea of poetry as an art form that has the ability to console. At first the poem leads the reader to believe that a beloved has perished, but if the second stanza describes this beloved, and this beloved is human, there is no possible way that this person could console the addresser on his/her funeral night. Who or what could have consoled the addresser on that night, then? The second line in stanza two alludes to Posilipo/Mount Posilip/Posilipo. Vergil, a renowned classical poet, is buried at Mount Posilip. This allusion conveys the importance and history of poetry, which allows the reader to believe that poetry, possibly, consoled the addresser, because dead beloveds do not simply console their left-behind loved ones. On the other hand, in the third stanza, when the addresser questions his state of being, he makes comparisons between allusions. He asks: "Am I like Lusignan or Biron?" Brion was a French war hero during the wars of religion. Lusignan was a man who lost his wife because he looked upon her bathing and found that she was a mermaid. Brion's character symbolizes loyalty - a trait seen here in a positive light, while the story of Lusignan is an example of a man giving into temptation - not an action to be held in high regard. The addresser's debate is now about whether it should be loyal to its beloved or not. Poetry cannot tempt a man, for it does not have the ability to love, nor can a man have romantic interest in the concept of poetry. He can love what poetry has the ability to express, but he cannot love poetry. How could this addresser be the poetic voice if it contemplates romantic loyalty to another? In the context of the poem, there is only one poetic voice; there is not an additional waiting for the first to entice it. In this poem, it is difficult to discern who or what the speaker is, which only builds upon the theme of the poem itself: through translation, some meaning is lost. For simplicity's sake, the context of the poem will be described using a character and a beloved, and not the poetic voice and poetry.

In the context of the poem, a person loses a beloved, as designated by the word "widower," which is present in all three translations. The word "united/unites/entwines" designates that this beloved was the person's other half because the presence of the beloved allowed the person to be whole. Since this beloved is no longer living, the person contemplates staying loyal to him/her in the third stanza. In the fourth stanza, the person attempts to bring his/her beloved back from the grave, which is personified as the Underworld by the allusion made to Orpheus and his tale. The result is: that after crossing the Acheron, a river in the Underworld, twice, the person and the beloved both disappear. This tells the reader that death is necessary to being human; that it is an innate trait that is not to be tampered with. If the person had not attempted to bring back his/her beloved, they would not have disappeared in the last stanza.

Each translation of the poem treats the state of the speaker differently. T.S. Eliot uses the phrase "I am the man of shadows" as his first line. This code choice implies a number of things: first, the speaker is a man, and second, he is of shadows. The word shadows can convey an immense number of signs and allusions. It can mean literally that the speaker is a man of comparative darkness or figuratively that he is a man of gloom and unhappiness, or it could be an allusion to Hades and the Underworld. Robert Duncan uses "I am the dark one" to begin his translation. This choice of code does not allow the reader to discern what exactly the speaker is - only that whatever it is, it is dark. The word dark, like shadows, has many different meanings and connotations linked to it. A.S. Kline uses "I am the darkness" to start her translation. This could mean the quality or state of being dark or signify the absence of the ‘light’ of life. The reader must make a decision in their interpretation process. They must decide what connotations, allusions, figurative, or literal meanings of words they will include in their interpretation of a work. Because it is impossible to incorporate each additional sign that one sign signifies, some meaning will be lost in interpretation. If the reader were to choose T.S. Eliot's translation of the poem, and to choose to discern "I am the man of shadows" as "I am a man of gloom and unhappiness," their interpretation will differ from another reader who decided to discern "I am the man of shadows" as an allusion to Hades and the Underworld. The first reader will not incorporate the allusion of Hades in their interpretation, and the second will not incorporate the gloom and unhappiness into theirs. The overall meaning of the poem that each reader decides on will be different.

It is a curious thing that each translator treats the addressee in the same fashion. All three translators use the word "consoled" to describe what the addressee did for the addresser. All three use the word "flower" and "trellis" to describe the addressee. Because a theme of indiscernible meaning runs through this poem, it is significant that across three translations, all written at different times, by different people, these three words associated with the addressee have remained intact. This discernible definition of the addressee shows that the addressee is always the same in some way. If the addressee is always the same in the sense that no matter how many times it is defined and communicated, its full meaning will never be translated, then there is no need for discerning who or what that addressee may be because communicating meaning is a process of translation, and that in that process, some meaning will be lost.

Each translator treats the code of the work in a different way. In the third line of the third stanza, each translator translates the original French phrase "où nage la sirène" into different phrases. T.S. Eliot's translation uses "where the mermaids sing." The words "mermaids" and "sing" together convey an image of beautiful mer-women lounging upon a rock while singing a pleasant tune. Robert Duncan's translation uses "where the mermaid swims." This choice of words describes a different scene: a singular mermaid swims in a body of water. She is free and exotic. Unlike T.S. Eliot's version, there is no sense of song conveyed by his choice of words. A.S. Kline translated the original French to "where Sirens swim." The imagery portrayed by these words differs from the other two translators' work. Sirens are female mer-creatures of Greek mythology. They are known to sing songs that are irresistible to sailors, and once a sailor gives into his temptation, a Siren consumes him. This slight change in code changes some meaning of the poem. Some meaning will be included, and some will be lost.

It is important to note that the addresser and the addressee exist more than on just the level of the world of the poem. The author is too, an addressee. He addresses whoever decides to interpret his work; in this case, a translator. That translator then becomes the addresser to a new addressee: whoever decides to interpret the translator's translation of the author's original poem! Since in the context of this poem, the addressee always remains the same, the ability to communicate with that addressee always remains the same. No matter who an addresser addresses, he/she/it will never be able to convey their full meaning due to changes in code, and meaning will always be lost. The loss of meaning will always create change in a work.

Man

I just got in a really big fight with Jacob and now I want to die.
So much for that being a good paper. UGH. I was so happy with it earlier, too.

So Apparently I REALLY Needed to Write More!

Man oh man, last night was a freaking disaster. Hahhahaha.

My brain still hurts from how bad it was. Ho-lee shit, dude.

There wasn't even time for anyone to awkwardly hit on anyone there were so many crying women and people and everything ever hoooomaaaaaaaan

Anyway, so, um, title ^

Apparently I needed to explain what the fuck and how I feel about things

I want to say something, though, before we get into this:

1. I never wanted to explain any of this. I might still not. Everything between me, Ryan, and Jacob is our own business, isn't it? Why should everyone know everything ever about what's going on? Why can't people just see that he, I, and Jacob are okay, and then mind their own damn problems?
2. Your opinion doesn't matter. I don't give a flying fuck about how you feel about the situation. I'll ask you if I want to hear your opinion. If not, keep it to yourself. A huge factor in everyone having a bad night last night was people putting things into Ryan's head. Jacob, Ryan, and I all went into last night looking to have a good time. It didn't happen, and it's not on us, guys. If everyone had not had something to say on the matter, Ryan would have been fine, and then he wouldn't have said things to make me upset.
3. If you don't understand the context of the situation or the people involved, it's really hard for you to make an opinion I'll actually consider listening to. 
4. I am not dragging Ryan nor Jacob through the dirt. Ryan and I are over. He's having a hard time dealing with his emotions right now. That doesn't mean I'm dragging him through the dirt. In fact -- I am doing the opposite by telling him he can still rely on me for emotional support. 'Cause, y'know, friends fucking do that shit for each other, right? It's also not my fault that he hasn't attempted to talk to me as much as he wants to. He can learn to ask for help, because I'm not going to sit here and baby him anymore. I know he's hurt, but it's time for him to man up and either ask for help or solve his own problems. Nobody is gonna do it for him. The hardest of times are the best to be a fucking bad ass. 
5. Jacob and I are dating. I've already let him know that if I want to date somebody else, I will. He believes it. It scares the shit out of him, and that kinda sucks. But the fact of the matter is: I really want some freedom right now. He knows that and respects it. It's fine. There's absolutely no reason why we can't enjoy each other right now, though, because I'm not interested in anybody else right now, and what people fail to understand about me and Jacob is that we've always had this bonkers-crazy close relationship. We're just like, being more romantic about our emotions, y'know? So what if I like him. I do. It's okay, and if you think not, please see #2 again.
6. You don't know Jacob. Stop having opinions of him until you actually know him. It's like talking about an interpretation of a book without actually reading it. You look like a Goddamn asshole. He's been here for a quarter and a half and most of ya'll have only seen him a few times and read his blog. There's a lot more to him than ya'll think. So quit, it, please?
7. Nothing is simple. There is no simple solution to anything. We all must work through making everything better, together. Divisions will only make us weak.
8. Fucking talk to me if you have an issue or want something cleared up. Don't sit there and ponder over thoughts you're unsure of. It's just a bad idea.

Well, that's all I'm saying for now. Don't feel like more at the moment.

Also: I'm not mad at anyone. Last night was just such a damn fail for all kinds of stupid reasons.

ALSO ALSO: Kendal, thank you for taking care of Ryan on Friday. He ultra-appreciated it, and I do too. <3

The Need to Write!

SOOOOOOO today in 102!

I was thinking, since we were just going over Benjamin again,

Man, I really want to write about Vanquish. Hahahaha.

Then I laughed at how nostalgic, nerdy, and fantastic I am.

Then I laughed at Alex being passed out because he stayed up until 6 AM finishing our paper for the class.

What a goof!

Anyway, so like, I was all supppppper down to start writing again.

Then I realized: shit, bro, I don't have any time for this shit!

Eh. Not really. I think I'm more just scared that my writing will end up as bad like, FFXI fanfiction. I don't wanna do that.

I do not have a lot of time, though. I mean, that's sort of true.

Then again, I have the time right now to be writing this...

Let's stop talking about me and time, 'aight?

Hrm... so now yeah okay~!

Writing. I want to write about Vanquish as a set of short stories that kinda are a memoir. They'd be Memoirs of a White Mage. Hhahahahaa.

I don't know why I laugh at writing about FFXI and the people I met there so much... maybe it's because society finds internet relationships to be petty jokes and not real in any sense -- and the connotations that go along with playing a MMO are just freakin' crazy... as in crazy negative...

Maybe I'm still afraid to step out of my comfort zone.

Funny, I know that once I do, I can produce something amazing.

But maybe I'm just not ready for that yet. Maybe I'm not ready because I don't feel that I have the adequate brain time to use on writing. Shit, man, I'd prolly only be able to write like a few pages a day, if that. Y'know, providing I was in the right mood to be writing at all. Homan--

Either way, there's been a lot on my mind recently. I've been spending a lot of time with Jacob, and it's made me really relaxed, peaceful, and happy. Though I feel as if I am being selfish, because my communication with Ryan has dropped substantially this week. I hope he doesn't think that I all of a sudden think ill of him -- as his crazy brain might do -- I just am like, happy as I am right now and am too selfish to want to change any of that at the moment.

Then again, why should I ever change my plans if they involve me being less happy? :/ Right?

Man. Everything is so crazy right now. Well, everything forever is crazy. That's just kinda how life is....

Tonight the Stellar Corpses are playing at the Catalyst. I don't think I'm going. I just like, won't feel right there. I'm not a psychobilly type of girl, y'know? I don't even know how to type the word correctly. I think the culture is cool, and I really appreciate it, but I'm not the type of person who can participate in a mosh pit -- even if it's the nicest most pit that ever existed! I can't deal with physical discomfort very well. It really affects my thinking and thought processes... no bueno, dude.

Also tonight: Silly Creature is playing at Kresge Town Hall aka 2 feet away from my apt. I haven't seen r00b, Nate, or Keyhan for a long time, and I'd really like to show those guys that I still enjoy Silly Creature, and that I support them! Besides, I'm also contemplating wearing my fish net shirt to the show to mess with Rubino. Hahahaha.

Oi, everything ever. Again. Everything ever in my head. Did you know I can write for days, dear blogger? I think you do, but sometimes, when my archive looks thin, I think you question my ability to write. I do too, though, so, maybe all of this thinking is kinda pointless. Maybe I should write a book all in stream-of-consciousness. That'd be really cool. It'd also prolly contain a lot of typos. Can I use spellcheck if I'm typing in stream-of-consciousness? Hahahaha. I think what I'm writing now is kinda stream-of-consciousness, and I used spellcheck to spell consciousness correctly... so... I guess it counts. Meh. Dunno. Too philosophical for me at the moment!

Erg so like later, I really want to write a super-awesome and long blog post about that teacher that I tried to get to know on Tumblr. I have no idea why he didn't respond to me. He prolly either thinks that I'm some goob ass undergrad without a brain OR doesn't actually have the time for a social life. I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt, because he is a teacher, and a very devoted teacher, so I think it is plausible that he could've had something more important to do than to chat with some random person on Tumblr. I just wish that he would've talked to me... I think he's so cool and smart and awesome and just like! Ugh. I would like to talk to someone who's just ahead of me in life so baaaaaaaaaad. I mean, the fact that he's adorable as shit doesn't bother me at all, either, but still. I'm not looking for a relationship right now. There's kinda one smacking me in the face currently. Oi. To be fair, I don't know if smacking is the right word to use. It implies that I'm not happy, or am like, forced into my current relationship situation. And I'm not. I do what I want. Like forever. Forever forever. Did you know that I freaking love language? Gosh, it's like the most interesting thing eveeer! But, then again, I prolly love the study of literature more. I dunno. I wonder what Tanner got on his paper. I'm really curious. Because I'm a bad person. Oh well.

Saturday night kinda sucked. It's a good thing this weekend has arrived now, though, because I think it's about to be a good one!

Also: heard Steve was more... of not my type of person. Interesting. Still willing to investigate, but like, significantly less interested in anything with him. I guess that's what the investigating is for, right? Hah!

Man. I keep talking about all of these things and people floating around and around and around in my head, but I never seem to talk about the things that are really, really important to me. Oh well. I don't know if I'm okay with my heart and soul on the internet -- just my brain works a lot better for me.

But wait. Is my brain my heart and soul? OH SHIT PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION TIMEEEEE

Oi, man, everything ever. Everything ever. Abbey is coming over on the 25th. I'm really excited to see her and how she's grown over the past few years. I think she's an incredible young lady, and never, ever gives herself enough credit for how far she's come. I guess that's where I come in, eh? :D

We're gonna watch Velvet Goldmine. It has Ewan McGregor naked in it. Hahahaha. 'Cause, y'know, I totally watch movies for a single aesthetic moment. Whatever. lol  I really hope I can get Kim to come over, too, because Goddamn I miss her. She's the freaking best.

UGGGGGGH. Could write forever. Forever and ever.

Whatevs.

I think I'm done for now. My brain isn't functioning as I'd like it to be to continue.

Don't ask me why -- 'cause I don't wanna think about it.

But then again, blogger, you don't ask me questions... you just sit here and allow me to fill you with my thoughts. So non-judgmental. I love it.

Meh. Ta-ta for now, motherfucker!

Back to Being Okay With Readers!

Honestly. I like my blog having stats.
It makes me happy. I like to know that not just my friends read my stuff.

/shrug

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.

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.

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.

I Feel so Miserable Right Now...

._.

Stresssssssssss
Emotioooooons
Tired
Bleh.

I Don't Think

I want to be in a relationship with anybody right now.

Breaking Up

...is really, really, really hard.

:(