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.

As You Like It: Turner and Mythology

In class on Thursday of last week it seems to me that we (Professor Sexson) covered pretty much every aspect of mythology that takes place in Acts I and II of "As You Like It". However turner has a whole chapter on "As You Like It" and though he doesn't talk about explicitly about mythology he does make some interesting points in regards to Time and other underlying themes.

As I had said before Fredrick Turner's book focuses on aspects of Time in Shakespeare's work. In the case of "As You Like It" he focuses on three aspects of time: Objective, Subjective, and Natural. Using these three notions of time he describes how different characters and occasions exhibit these different notions of time. Natural time pertains to the characters exile in Arden. Turner calls this time natural time because it operates according to the seasons (nature). What is interesting is that Turner views Arden as being in perpetual spring. However he also acknowledges how each of the characters tries to enact their preconceived perceptions of time on their environment. I tried tying this to mythology by using the ideas of the Pastoral place versus the Urban. I can remember a class I took at the University of Washington called "Dreaming the Earth". In that class we read Vigil's Eclogues. In the Eclogues Virgil juxtaposes the Pastoral with the Urban. In that Pastoral place life operates upon a different pace. People like Virgil's Tityrus live a peaceful life (resting, playing music, tending his flock).
What is interesting is that upon a rereading I came across a passage that reads, "teach the woods to re-echo the name of beautiful Amaryllis" (Virgil). In my opinion this is reminiscent of Turner's idea that the characters in "As You Like It" bring their own perceptions with them into the pastoral place, much like Meliboeus in "Eclogue 1". To take it one step further if you think about the Elysian fields (pseudo Greek heaven) this is the pastoral place of mythology. The place of rest. The pastoral is not only real because it exists in nature but it is also an ideal, a dream of sorts.

Another notion of time that is covered is subjective time. This kind of subjective time in "As You Like It" takes place during the journey. Turner ascertains that journey time is one of rhythm, he even likens the act to the movement of a horse up down as well as forward. "This is time as pace" (Turner 39). This kind of time as a journey also takes place through out a play because a play, film or book is a thematic event with a starting point and an end. This journey becomes more and more explicit when the reader or audience understands the thematic structure, like that of a comedy. For instance the u-shape. This is how instinctively a audience member or reader knows the end is near without it being explicit e.g. a timer.Certainly there are physical aspects of reading etc.. that let us know the end is near for example the thinning number of pages remaining in a book. However I agree with turner. I feel that if the audience or reader etc... had not a way of measuring the time they would intuitively perceive where in the journey they lay based on the thematic sequence.

The most prevalent portion of Turner's Chapter on "As You Like It" focuses on Jacques and his notions of time etc...More though than time I found something else more interesting. Turner writes about Jacques famous lines, "All the world's a stage..." (Shakespeare). Even though Jacques is detached he also has the most historical and objective perception of time. That said time is meaningless in the objective sense because it has no real bearing on the world because there is only the present moment and nothing else, essentially the acknowledgement of a past and a future is to treat time like myth itself. What complicates this matter is that Turner believes that by Jacques saying all the world is a stage etc... his is inadvertently saying that the people (the players) are participating or acting in a play that has already been written. "A play exists before it is performed; time is like a motion picture, every frame of which has already been prepared" (Turner 33). Now where I get confused is whether that makes time more subjective or more objective. The idea of  life as a play already written lends to ideas of fate. Like in mythology fate plays a huge role in every action and outcome in the lives of people. And I am spent.

Fredrick Turner. Stop blowing my mind!

 A couple of days ago I received my copy of Fredrick Turner's book Shakespeare and the Nature of Time. Honestly the purchase of the book was accidental, I clicked purchase on my ipad by mistake and it couldn't be undone. Fifty bucks and a few days later the book came into my possession. Good bye Ted Hughes. The accidental purchase of Turner's book was the best book buying mistake in the history of my academic career.

As the title implies, the book is about Shakespeare and Time. The title got me excited because believe it or not I have almost zero background with Shakespeare and even less with his inspiring texts and theory inspired by his work. So I was glad to move into a more existential realm of analysis, one that focuses on Shakespeare's work and not everyone else's. Meaning, I don't want to talk about Greek mythology, Ovid, Borges or any other authors. I just want to read Shakespeare and talk about it. Believe it or not that is exactly what Turner does. He takes the text and talks about it. There is a little Eliot in there and a little Bible, but not enough to distract from the task at hand. It is almost like Turner mentions them as hypotheticals (read them if you want or don't. As you like it). What is so refreshing in terms of a theoretical text is that Turner's book reads nothing like a theoretical text. As a reader you can almost feel the excitement in his writing. There is a feeling of shared exploration and enthusiasm. He uses exclamation points for Christ sake. I have yet to see an exclamation point in a theoretical text.

At the moment I am only two chapters into Turner's book and I am floored. As I read I am continually letting the book fall into my lap as my mind goes running in a thousand directions (in a good way). It would seem that the topic of time would be a somewhat specific topic, but right of the bat turner divides it into the nine notions of time:

1. Objective
2. Subjective
3. The Agent
4. Realm/Sphere
5. Natural
6. Medium of Cause and Effect
7. Moments and Periods
8. The Revealer/Unfolder
9. Rhythm

These nine notions bleed into almost every conceivable aspect of the human condition (perceptions, ideas, actions, etc...) After Turner establishes these notions he moves on to chapter two entitled "Time the 'Destroyer' in the Sonnets. It is here in this chapter that I am just beginning to understand a part of Shakespeares' method and purpose. I am starting to see a method in the madness. I say madness because in some respects I read Shakespeare and have no !#$&ing idea what he is saying. I realized I am going about the reading all wrong. I was trying to use the metaphors as abstracts to describe the concrete, while I should be using the concrete in the metaphors to describe the abstract. That the images in his work are in and of themselves the meaning. I found that I have to read Shakespeare as myself (a living breathing person). I have to give up my analytical mind and go with my literary instincts (kind of like following my gut). I need to let myself feel what emotions, feelings and thoughts are created by the images within the metaphors.

That is all I can really rant about at the moment. More is to be uncovered. I am just glad that Turner could actually help me. So often I feel that I read literary theory only to be confounded even more. I'll read theory, all the while yelling, "Speak English! What are you saying? Just say it." This I feel is a new beginning for me, a period of illumination as well as appreciation.

Jim Croce - Time in a Bottle

The Boar

The Boar is an image that has continued to haunt me. My first encounter with the boar took place in "Adonis and Venus" Then on two versions of Ted Hughes Book The Goddess of Complete Being there is the image of the boar. Out of curiosity I read some of Ted Hughes work, specifically his poetry. Many of his more notable poems are focused on animals and the inherent emotions and imagery that each evokes. I especially enjoyed his poem, "Pike", among others.



Pike
  
Pike, three inches long, perfect
Pike in all parts, green tigering the gold.
Killers from the egg: the malevolent aged grin.
They dance on the surface among the flies.


Or move, stunned by their own grandeur,
Over a bed of emerald, silhouette
Of submarine delicacy and horror.
A hundred feet long in their world.


In ponds, under the heat-struck lily pads-
Gloom of their stillness:
Logged on last year's black leaves, watching upwards.
Or hung in an amber cavern of weeds


The jaws' hooked clamp and fangs
Not to be changed at this date:
A life subdued to its instrument;
The gills kneading quietly, and the pectorals.


Three we kept behind glass,
Jungled in weed: three inches, four,
And four and a half: red fry to them-
Suddenly there were two. Finally one


With a sag belly and the grin it was born with.
And indeed they spare nobody.
Two, six pounds each, over two feet long
High and dry and dead in the willow-herb-


One jammed past its gills down the other's gullet:
The outside eye stared: as a vice locks-
The same iron in this eye
Though its film shrank in death.


A pond I fished, fifty yards across,
Whose lilies and muscular tench
Had outlasted every visible stone
Of the monastery that planted them-


Stilled legendary depth:
It was as deep as England. It held
Pike too immense to stir, so immense and old
That past nightfall I dared not cast


But silently cast and fished
With the hair frozen on my head
For what might move, for what eye might move.
The still splashes on the dark pond,


Owls hushing the floating woods
Frail on my ear against the dream
Darkness beneath night's darkness had freed,
That rose slowly toward me, watching.


Ted Hughes

His poetry uses the image of these animals as a muses for his work. Thus the image of the Boar became more important to my understanding of Ted Hughes and his analysis of Shakespeare.  I do not yet have Ted Hughes book, however it is on its way via UPS (those big brown trucks kind of look like boars). In the mean while I am looking into the boar outside of Hughes and Shakespeare, that way I may be able to pick up what Hughes and Shakespeare are putting down.

What I started to find intrigued me. I may be drawing these conclusions out of thin air, but I still find them interesting. The wild boar is a crepuscular animal; meaning they are active at night. When I read that it screamed school of night. Not only that but the wild boar is found on practically every continent (beside Greenland and Antarctica). Once introduced from one area to another they adapt and grow, like an idea. However it was not always like that. In the middle ages the boar was nearly hunted to extinction, pursued without mercy into the deepest recesses of world. The boar was no push over, when confronted the boar fights to the death. The boar reminds me of Sir Walter Raleigh in his last words to his executioner, "Strike man, Strike!"

Besides the biological, the boar has a symbolic meaning in many different mythologies. In  Greek mythology both the Erymanthian Boar, and the Calydonian Boar were an instrument of the gods giving it a divine nature. Also these boars were both hunted by Greek heroes to prove their worth. The most interesting myth of the boar that I found, comes from Norse mythology. There was a boar by the name of Gullinbursti (meaning golden mane). This boar belonged to a nordic god by the name of Freyr. According to the myth Freyr threw a pigs skin into a furnace to create Gullinbursti which gave him bristles in his mane that glowed in the dark to light the way. Gullinbursti lights the way, he was a symbol of light in the dark, and enlightenment. Finally one last mythological boar Hildisvíni, on which a Nordic goddess Freya rode. The boar Hildisvini was actually her protege Ottar whom she had concealed as a boar to protect his identity.

At this time I don't quite know what to make of the boar and it's importance to Hughes but I am starting to draw some ideas. One the boar as a symbolic figure of enlightenment, and as a disguise. The disguise I want to say has something to do with the school of night, goddesses, gods, and maybe even Shakespeare himself.

Another First

Last semester I popped my blogging cherry with "The Bible as Literature" and this semester I have written my first sonnet. Believe it or not it took me days to write these fourteen lines. It was a doozy. I don't know if it is good or not so I offer it up to the blogging sphere of judgement.

Sonnet #1:

The plans of love cannot be made to wait,
As mice cannot begin to halt the owl.
Consigned to hang on by the thread of fate.
When cut, they fall wrung drops, like wounded fowl.


Into the mind the heart will seep and fill,
Each though consumed and urged to blend in time.
Two souls entwined like roots of plants with will,
To be but split shall kill them both in prime.


Perceived like wind on tops of golden reeds
To fan the flames that feed the needful thing,
By which the blur of life and things impede.
The sea will take those floundering.


A world with love endures great pain in loss
A force that sent a man to climb the cross.

Don't ask me what I think it means just let it mean whatever. I tried to have a theme in the sonnet but I don't know if it really came out in the end. Love is no doubt a beautiful thing but not with out consequence. Love wields tremendous power. This left me to ponder this question. If the world were loveless would it be a better place? I find that Shakespeare however romantic and flowering never once allows love to appear inconsequential. As I have come to find that love cause many in Shakespeare's work unbearable pain for some to the point of suicide, or murder. Obviously the love doesn't make them do these things but when the love is lost the ensuing flood of jealousy and grief certainly has some negative effects. So, again. Would the world be a better place with the absence of love?

P.S. beautiful blogs peeps. There is no favoritism in the world of Roberto's blog. Only in real life.

Epic Poems

Shakespeare 's Poems "Adonis & Venus" and "The Rape of Lucrece" are no doubt epic in length and however I find "The Rape of Lucrece" also to be epic in the subject matter. The title kind of spoils it, but it doesn't prepare you for what is about to come. What is so disturbing is the blend of Shakespeare's language and the rapist Tarquinius's thoughts. The thoughts of Tarquinius are no doubt dark and vile. Giving you a creepy all over feeling. You become privy to thoughts that are unnerving, his motive, his desire, his plan. All the while innocent and chaste Lucrece sleeps comfortably in her bed. Now forgive me if I offend, but despite the prospect of rape, the scene leading up to the act is some what erotic. As text it is surely erotic, however I never thought that I would become some what 'aroused' by the voyeurism of the sleeping Lucrece and Shakespeare's detailed descriptions e.g. The blue veined alabaster breasts. Again these feeling are just my own, and are just evidence of the power of words to produce a emotive as well as physiological response in the reader.

Similarly I also felt stirred in certain ways when it came to the poem of "Adonis and Venus" Shakespeare has a way with words. His description of lust for instance has tremendous beauty metaphorically and a very carnal and tactile nature. You can get hot under the collar just reading. Again this may be and probably is isolated to my own experience. Regardless this is great stuff. I have always been stuck reading the same old same old of Shakespeare since middle school so it is refreshing to read pieces that I have not had the pleasure of reading before.

Shakespeare speaks in a whole other language, and by this I am not referring to the vernacular of the period but the way in which Shakespeare describes and relates things. The man has a style that seems all his own. He writes in metaphors and simile, he personifies, hyperbolizes. It is funny because in oral traditions with Dr. Morgan we looked at a the beginning of Shakespeare's Sonnet 73:

That time of year thou mayst in me behold
When yellow leaves, or none, or few, do hang
Upon those boughs which shake against the cold,
Bare ruin'd choirs, where late the sweet birds sang.

And what is so wonderful is that Shakespeare is writing "I am old." Yet his way of putting it is so much more enthralling to read. I used this example because it is fresh in my mind, but I have no doubts that there are many others that come to mind.

The School of Night: bad asses with mustaches

Step One: Become Sir Walter Raleigh

1. Mustache/Sparse facial hair ☑
2. One golden earring               ☑
3. Member of secret society      ☑
4. Black attire                            ☑ or as often as I can.
5. English                                   I will see what I can do.
6. Beheaded                                ?

The School of Night



"Archimedes had claimed to be able to move the world if he were given a fixed place for a fulcrum. The emblem and motto develop Archimedes’ idea in a way peculiar to the School of Night. Does the emblem mean that the world is equal to nothing? Or that it is supported by nothing? Or that so great is human thought that though it have but a feather’s weight in the physical realm, yet by the contrivance of a machine it can move the world? From what bird came the feather? The mind or imagination of man was likened to a bird in a metaphor standard to the great Renaissance humanists. The fulcrum is a sort of equals-sign; the length of the beam on either side can be compared to a numerical multiplier; the weights are the multiplicands. What does the equation mean?"

"The weightless thoughts of man can effectively control the massive universe itself, if correct principles of rational transformation–proper levers, pulleys, lenses, clocks, quadrants–can be found. The microcosm can not only reflect, but control, the macrocosm."

However out there, Fredrick Turner's piece was quite interesting. I picked the above quotations because I felt like they embodied the essence of what Turner was getting at. The power of the mind the the seemingly endless possibilities for thought. Now at this juncture I find it premature to draw any conclusions, but his essay has given me plenty to think about and I plan on using the above quotes as theoretical thread upon which to weave my thoughts.

As an aside I am beginning to realize that when it comes to William Shakespeare everything is not as it seems. Shakespeare is no doubt an iconic figure and generally regarded as being one of if not the greatest literary mind to have ever walked the face of our pale blue dot. However the more I research the icon the more I found to be missing. Just this week on PBS there was a program called "The Battle of Wills" which was all about the portraits of Shakespeare and how most of the portraits of him were painted posthumously. Leaving only a couple of portraits that could have been painted while he was alive. Which to me was preposterous that here we have the vision of a such an iconic figure and it may not even be him. It blew my mind. It is as if Shakespeare in the last four hundred years has become a mythic figure in and of himself like much like the characters he created. Shakespeare in my mind has become so mythic that at this point it wouldn't even matter if he had ever existed, because regardless of who he was as a man the body of work lives on. This is crazy talk, but I am just waiting to find out that William Shakespeare was some sort imaginary identity created by The School of Night as an outlet for them to publish their creative works. If that were true then they would have changed the world in greater ways than anyone could have imagined. I say that because the majority of the members of the school of night were geniuses in their own right.

The point being that you think you know something, but when you dig a little deeper you start to find that you know nothing at all. The patterns and connections with the Shakespearean texts may drive me insane.

The First Post

Hello... And Welcome.