Help Me, Help You: Term Paper Topic Experiment

Dear Shakespearean Cohort Members,

I beseech you. I was here sitting in the library pining for a good paper topic, but the result was nil until I let go absolutely. So I have a novel idea. Okay maybe this idea has been done, but it is new to me. I am asking you my colleagues for a term paper topic. My reasoning for this is that I am going to have to give a 3 minute presentation to the class on the term paper in question. If I give a boring ass presentation that no one gives two shits about then I am not only getting a bad grade but I am effectively wasting your time. Thus I think it would be advantageous to all of us to find a topic to our liking. Just add a comment to this blog post with your term paper topic suggestions. I am open to any and all topics. Let's make this interesting. The more extreme the better. I look forward to reading your ideas.

Cohort Forever,
Roberto Amado-Cattaneo

Caliban and Smerdyakov

First things first. When I was a child my family had a bay Hanoverian by the name of Caliban. He was beautiful, but until I read the tempest I had absolutely no idea were the name came from. Honestly I thought my mother made it up (LOL).


Caliban



In a piece entitled "Philosophical Anthropology and Dostoevsky's 'Legend of the Grand Inquisitor" author Ellis Sandoz refers to Smerdyakov from The Brother Karamozov as a, "moral Caliban and biological half brother and son of Ivan" (Sandoz).

Smerdyakov





Both Smerdyakov and Caliban have interesting features make them similar. In the case of physical appearances both characters lack a certain verisimilitude. Meaning both are of them by all intensive purposes are described as human. The use of the term human is more loosely used in the case of Caliban because he is described as have attributes of a fish. Along those same lines both characters are described as having a peculiar odor. They are both stinky individuals, and like the old saying goes, "cleanliness is close to godliness" which in some ways may have implications the odor that they both emit lend to there less than human nature, since man was after all created in the image of the creator. In relation to Smerdyakov it seems his fishy looking exterior is manifested in his greased hair and oddly immaculate exterior. His clothes are out of fashion but sharp, and his boots are well polished. It could also be mentioned that Smerdyakov is also a epileptic which also removes him just a little more from the norm, even though this is not a physical deformity it is non the less a handicap of sorts.

In terms of there roles in thee perspective stories both also fill a similar role. Not only are they both outsiders because of physical attributes they are both disenfranchised heirs. In the case of Caliban he and his mother ruled the island until Prospero came to town. Caliban's mother Sycorax is offed by Prospero and now the heir to the rule of the island becomes slave to Prospero. In much the same way this is the plight of Smerdyakov. He is presumeably the son of Fyodor Karamozov just like the other three brothers, however Smerdyakov is denied any entitlement to the family estate and is resigned to be nothing more but Karamozov's epileptic cook.

This all seems pretty straight forward and where the confusion comes in is Smerdyakov as a "moral Caliban." I don't necessarilly find one more moral than the other in terms of their actions. However it may be reference to Smerdyakov plight being similar to the moral of Caliban. Or it could be that Smerdyakov story is a moral version of Calibans story. In my opinion Smerdyakov is the moral Caliban because he was for all intensive purposes trying to do the right thing. The guy had a fucked up child hood followed by a even more awkward adult life, where he was osstrisized and neglegted by his family, and when they did have any connection with him is was either to use or abuse him. Unlike Caliban Smerdyakov gives what he received, place in there a moral, "Treat those as you woulde have done unto yourself. Otherwise you are either going to have your head bashed in with an iron paper weight, framed for murder, or driven insane by the truth." The moral Caliban.

Back to the Boar

In a blog that I have already posted I wrote about the boar in Shakespeare's work. However as I continue on this journey I find that as I try to move away from the boar it pulls me back in. The boar seemed like a good starting point for some analysis of some of Shakespeare's work especially in relation to the poem "Venus and Adonis" but the boar is everywhere in Shakespeare's work. Appearing in "Venus and Adonis", "Antony and Cleopatra", "As You Like It", "A Midsummer Night's Dream". These few works are the ones I have read thus far, also these examples are works that actually use the word Boar. If I were to expand my search to Boar characteristics I would find much more of the boar. It would appear in "King Lear" and "Pericles" and surely many more which I have yet to read.

The Boar characteristics are interesting because they are somewhat analogous to the certain baser male attributes. I would seem that more often than not that male characters in Shakespeare who get jealous, angry, violent, and stubborn are likened to a boar. In most instances this is not explicit but non the less the correlation between these male attitudes and the behavior of the wild boar have certain parallels. Another thing is that quite often when male characters are exhibiting these boar characteristics they are also putting themselves in harms way, because they become blind like a dumb beast, and like the boar they go fighting to there death. And ironically enough Adonis's behavior ends up getting him killed by an actual boar. Another interesting boar behavior coupled with the actual boar is a scene in "Antony and Cleopatra" where men Manent Enobarbus, Agrippa, Maeccenas gloat about the feast they had. Eight whole boars feasted on by twelve people. The men in there "Boar" mode actually consume boars.

While exploring plays that we will not be reading in this class I came upon a wonderful example of the boar. I watched the film version of Richard the III with Ian Mckellen and there was a line in there mentioning, you guessed it, the boar. I found the line later in the actual play and it goes as follows:

Richard the III Act V Scene 2

Henry, Earl of Richmond:

Fellows in arms, and my most loving friends,
Bruis'd underneath the yoke of tyranny,
Thus far into the bowels of the land
Have we march'd on without impediment;
And here receive we from our father Stanley
Lines of fair comfort and encouragement.
The wretched, bloody, and usurping boar,
That spoil'd your summer fields and fruitful vines,
Swills your warm blood like wash and makes his trough
In your embowell'd bosoms --this foul swine
Is now even in the centry of this isle,
Near to the town of Leicester, as we learn.
From Tamworth thither is but one day's march.
In God's name the harvest of perpetual peace
By this one bloody trial of sharp war.

Sounds like a good war time speech to me. The idea of killing that most foul swine the boar is a "beautiful" image for soldiers. The boar that drinks your blood and feasts on your disemboweled bodies in it's trough.

The Boar ladies and gentlemen, the Boar, one of the many manifestations of mans grotesque and unsightly underbelly. The boar is the dark and primitive animal side of men. If there ever was a beast that were a sensualist it is the boar. If you took Fyodor Karamazov from Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov and transformed him into his spirit animal he would without a doubt be a Boar. This aspect of the Boar and man my speak to a universal notion that a little Boar dwells within every man whether he releases it or not.

Fredrick Turner and the Book of Acts

"And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power" (Acts 1:7)

I am not quite finished with Shakespeare's King Lear. This go around I would like to take a look at the play through the looking glass of Fredrick Turner and his work Shakespeare and the Nature of Time. This connection to the bible happened on accident but became inspiring for a new wave of unintelligible thought. While reading The Brothers Karamazov there was a little foot note that read, "Acts 1:7". Thanks to the Ipad I was able to quickly look at my KJV Bible App (I know right?) and find the line above. I found it interesting because it reminded me a lot of Turner and some things happening in King Lear.

According to Nasa's (good name drop) historical records on the date of October 12, 1605 Europe experienced a total solar eclipse. Now Shakespeare seems to allude to this event in King Lear when Edgar and Edmund are having a discussion in Act I.2 Now Edmund and Edgar in this conversation there is a line that reads, "I promise you that effects he writes of succeed unhappily: as unnaturalness" (Shakespeare). Not only does this simply act as an omen as to tragic events to following (foreshadowing) but it lends to the idea that natural time is out of sync. The natural cycle of the moon and the sun, and day and night are disjointed. Using Turner's aspect of natural time as order of things could easily be attached to the natural process of aging. However in this case the natural order is screwed up. Typically Edmund or Edgar would usurp their father as soon as he passed like the moon that rises once the sun as fallen, but this is all undone. With total solar eclipse comes the foretelling of the son that will eclipse his living father.

How this pertains to the book of acts is that the time even in Turner's natural sense is not a constant. With an event like an eclipse, and leap years. The point being that time even in the most cyclical sense is not a constant because our sense of natural time is based on the celestial bodies in the sky, thus when things like eclipses happen time changes the cycle is broken, much like natural time is in the power of the 'Father'. And what that really means is that the future is unforetold, and that despite our best efforts to control time and the events of the future it way be futile.

This was not typically revolutionary blog but I just like when things come together.

"The Bow is bent and drawn, make from the shaft", because this shit is about to go down.

Roberto, Roberto Thou art careful and troubled about many things: But one thing is needful.

The idea of needful things is a problem that has plagued me since adolescence. I have always been concerned with everything, down to the finest minutia of detail. This kind of living can become tiresome and aggravating. Looking at this is an example of why I disagree with Turner's assertion of the minds capability to contain the universe. Just too much day to day trivial shit can drive a person bat shit crazy. However I do agree with Turner in another way. I do believe that the mind is a universe in and of itself, that the possibilities and combinations of thoughts are endless. I do believe that human beings do not access the brains potential. I believe that we do not access the creative potential of the mind. To hold the external universe on the inside of the mind for me lends the mind to a storage device rather than a creative device. In this way I feel that it is not what shakespeare's stories that are so captivating, because as we have proven it is all recycled material, however it is how the story is told that makes Shakespeare genius. The cauldron of stories and plot lines already exist and will continue to exist while the manner in which those stories are told will continue to change and evolve. This is where to creative universe of the mind is most important. The same story could be told in an infinite number of ways. Different settings, characters, actions, and TIME. A love story can be told at a glance a split second exchange of eyes, or it can be told over the course of a life time, even multiple life times.

Oh how I digress, from even writing of the needful thing, let alone doing the needful thing. For me the needful thing is "Contentedness." To at any given moment see that which I have and that which is good and to be contented with it. To live life in the here and the now, lightening my mind of the loads of the past and the future. Some like St. Francis quite literally lightened their loads. From what I have heard and read St. Francis renounced all of his earthly possessions humbly himself amongst creation, freeing himself from the bondage of the external. To loose his earthly bonds. I read in a 'book' that St. Francis went as far at walk upon the earth with his bare feet. In King lear I kept thinking about St. Francis and the notions of nothing. Nothing may be nothing but if I can write nothing and you feel nothing, see nothing, perceive nothing, then nothing is something. I felt that in King Lear nothing was freedom, nothing answers to no one, you cannot take nothing from someone. You cannot go into nothing, nor become nothing. Like in physics of energy there is the law of conservation. Energy cannot be destroyed it can only change form. In that way nothing is something.

Nothing as something is like Cordelia's love for her father, both in the world of King Lear and the world of William Shakespeare. Her love needs no explanation because it exists regardless of explanation. In some ways this go against the grain of how love typically operates in William Shakespeare's work. When someone is in love typically there are these long and intricate overtures to the loved. Examples can be seen in Venus and Adonis, and a Midsummer Night's Dream. Yes they are Comedies however there is prophetic love in the dead horse "Romeo and Juliet". Yet here in King Lear Cordelia has this honest and unwavering love yet she says nothing (not nothing but not much). That said is the real act of love that which we see in Cordelia or the other characters in Shakespeare's work. I find that the Cordelia love is much like the love that we find that Mary has for Jesus. She does what she can were she can and enjoys it and that is enough, there are no grandiose acts to perform, or oaths to take in order to show ones love. While an individual the likes of Martha is laboring to impress Jesus, all the while suffering, acting in contradiction to the needful thing. 

All's Well that Ends Well: An easier softer way.

My initial plans for this blog were to rewrite "All's Well that Ends Well" in plain English. I felt that maybe by translating it I would find more understanding, literal understanding that I could internalize. What ended up happening was that by page fifteen I was exhausted. I found that I could not continue writing, not because the task was long or arduous but because I had come to a realization of sorts.The more and more that I translated the more and more the play lost its meaning. By changing the language I was effectually deconstructing the art. Taking beauty right out of the piece. If critics felt that "All's Well that Ends Well" was bad before, then they really didn't want to read it in plain English. The content of the play is certainly alright however the language is what gives Shakespeare his panache. Upon reaching page fifteen I lowered my hands from the keyboard and surrendered. I bowed down before the text giving Shakespeare some much deserved reverence. I feel that this blog now is my amends for committing hubris against the master and his quill. Shakespeare to use Wordsworth's words sees into the life of things.

In all honestly regardless of convention I quite enjoyed "All's Well that Ends Well". What I liked was that while remaining a comedy it broke with the conventional comedic progression. To be honest I tire easily of comedy. I am a tragedy person. Back to the point of comdey AWTEW stood apart from the other Shakespearian commedies. There are acouple of instance where I noticed (may not be terribly insightfull but this is what I got). For example Betram and Helena marry somewhere in the middle the play breaking the tradtional marriage as an ends. So all the while the reader asks themself how will this end, "the marriage already took place and the man has run off." I feel that the play does end with the marriage, but in the form of the consummation of their marriage. What is really fitting to the comedic tradition is that everything pans out in the end. The title is quite appropriate because it is that over arching theme of the how comedies end, they...well...end well.

Separate from comedy I would like to briefly discuss a portion of the play that I found most interesting. The dialogue between the clown and the countess in Act I.III. Presumably the dialogue is supposed to be jovial however there were a few lines that I found to resonate with me in a more serious manner. The first of which is the line spoken by Lavacht (the clown). The Countess asks him why it is that he must marry and he replies, "My poor body, madam, requires it: I am driven on by the flesh; and he must needs go that the devil drives." (Shakespeare) I reread this line over and over, and then the section over and over. Initially I felt that Lavacht was being  a pervert, and that he made his comment as an overt illusion to lust and sinful craving. Then I got this meloncaoly feeling, because the notion of being driven by the flesh implies the existence of the biological clock, the temporality of life (mortality) and impending death. This in conjuction with a line that follows shortly there after I found some other meaning. Lavacht then says, "I have been, madam, a wicked creature, as you and all flesh and blood are; and, indeed, I do marryn that I may repent." (Shakespeare) From this I began to gather another meaning. I feel that Lavacht in some ways did intend his comments to be somewhat lascivious, however they entail deeper mythological meaning. I think that this is an allusion to the myth of original sin and how no matter how hard we struggle that we cannot be sepearte from the sins of the flesh, and that humans are of sin by origin. That being said, if original sin is an inherint part of our being then what is the point of fighting the 'urge". Then the devil come into play because he was the instigator of the original sin and as a result he set humanity in motion, hence the devil drives.This section holds relevance because I find that it is a underlying comment of human sexuality and marriage as the medium in which sexuality is acceptable (to a certain extent). All these conclusions of course have been drawn together in my mind and may not be as relevant as I think. I am also starting to find that Shakespeare may not be as into marriage as his character let on.

Intellectual Relapse in Shakespeare

Original Art by Roberto Amado-Cattaneo

This blog is somewhat irrelevant. Recently I have been reading some contemporary literature. Actually I am more often than not in the process of reading some contemporary literature. Regardless, what I noticed is that when I read contemporary literature I find myself amerced in the material (I am talking about good material not crap, if I am not into a book I put it down and move on). When it is funny I laugh and typically when it is sad I cry, as well as a myriad of emotions in between these two. The point is that I am affected by the material I am reading. There is a certain connection to the text that I feel as a reader.

Now forgive me for my ignorance, but I just don't feel the same way when I read classical literature. That is not to say that I am not affected by works like that of Shakespeare, but the feelings are not quite as acute. I feel a kind of social detachment from older works. I understand what they mean and can still relate in general terms, however I feel a disconnect because I can't relate to the times. The universal issues that  find their way into Shakespeare like love, loss, death, etcetera are still as much alive today as they were then, but in the same breath times have changed. I live in a different age than Shakespeare.

Honestly I think the biggest hurtle that I have to over come is the language. The language is beautiful and articulate, but as a result of this kind of linguistic relativity I find I am stretching to find meaning and thus loosing feeling. Like anything else when it is done with ease and comfort I find it more enjoyable, and when I am outside my level of 'comprehension' I find that I struggle to enjoy the activity.

None of this is to slight Shakespeare's significance, or to downplay classical works of literature, it is more of an acknowledgement of my difficulty studying Shakespeare, and what this course is teaching me about myself as an 'intellectual', a student, and a literate human being. Blogs like this one help me to create an outlet for my frustrations in pedagogical realm.

Again I find that I am in a kind of intellectual relapse. I end up falling back into a habit of reading objectively looking to hard for connections to historical context and literary influence. I have to realize that I don't know as much as I would like, so I must stick with the basics. On the top of that basics list is reading for my own enjoyment, and secondly for my intellectual enrichment. Otherwise what is the point of reading, if you can't enjoy it? That is like going to watch a movie to only to focus on the dynamics of light. I need to just watch the screen and enjoy the show. I am working on trying to find a balance in my mind between intellect and imagination.