The Question of Isabelle's Justification

I'm not surprised that so many people are offended by the question "was Isabelle's choice justified?"
Judging from the video we watched and the intense perverseness of the scene in which this question was meant for, it is perfectly rational for the answer to that question to be: "Um, that's a bullshit question because a woman's body is her right and not some poker chip she has to use to gamble for what's clearly right." or "That's a bullshit question because of feminine rights and that dude was clearly a rapist or some kind of sexual fiend."

However, I for one live by the age old rule that states: "There is no such thing as a bullshit question." I'm paraphrasing of course, but you get the idea.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure the question of Isabelle's "justification" was meant to be a rhetorical one; at least by modern standards. I hate to keep bringing it up, but a woman's sexuality was a commodity back in Shakespeare's time and even before then, as we have seen with the Canterbury Tales. So the question of if her choice was "justified" is perfectly rational to ask, even if the guy proposing the choice is a raging pervert.

But also, there have been plenty of other examples through different forms of media in which a woman is presented with the choice to give herself to some guy (or guys...ew) in exchange for someone's life or what not. Let's look at the queen from 300 for example. Yes, I am aware that 300 was an incredibly hokey movie and not entirely (if at all) factual. However, I chose this because it is a pretty modern example of what I would like to call: "Isabelle's Choice".

For those of you not familiar with the movie, let me explain the scene I am referring to. Leonidas and his men have holed themselves up in the Hot Gates and have been fighting valiantly against the Persian armies for a really long time. However, without reinforcements, their fighting would most certainly be in vain and they would all die. The queen, Gorgo, loves her husband very much and believes in his cause. She has faith that victory is in their grasp and all they need is more reinforcements. However, even as queen of Sparta, Gorgo cannot simply send the reinforcements to her husband's aid. She needs to sway the council (all men of course) to send the reinforcements; which requires the support of a particularly lecherous and traitorous councilmember named Theron. Here is where he presents Isabelle's Choice: Give yourself to me and I will sway the council in your favor. Refuse and you and your husband are SOL.

Here's the actual scene. And, I will warn you that things get uncomfortable at around 2:41.

Now, Gorgo chose to sleep with Theron, who was neither a gentle or ideal lover by far; which didn't work out in her favor because Theron betrayed her and well...the rest is history.

My point is: if Isabelle had chosen to sleep with the equally disgusting and unlikeable Angelo, would the question still be "bullshit"? If he had approached her in a kinder and more romantic way (let's say with flowers and chocolates, while strumming a lyre and singing beneath her balcony), would her choice not to sleep with him to save an innocent man still be "bullshit"?  

Although, because of the kind of person Isabelle is and because of the modern times we live in, it is quite difficult for us to consider her choice to not have sex with Angelo as anything but justified.

I just thought the comparison between these two different characters would make for an interesting discussion because I, myself, had issues trying to figure out how the question of Isabelle's justification even came into being. However, after much thought and seeing the two different answers to the same choice, I began to at least understand it a little bit.

Measure for Measure

Angelo and Claudio are the two characters who are really getting under my skin! I'll start with Angelo, why does he feel that it is okay to have sex with Isabella? Does he not know that she's in the process of becoming a nun? Better yet..why would he even use her for sex to free her brother? I wish I could understand Angelo's thought process. If your supposed to be someone with so much authority and power, why lower your standards? However, he realizes that it's hard to break Isabella. She is not putting up with his shenanigans (Go Isabella)!! Isabella is a very intelligent young woman, and she uses her intelligence against Angelo and his stupidity. Angelo realizes that she is a strong woman who stands up for what she believes in. I guess he is used to dealing with "easy" women with no "sense". In addition, it also shows that Angelo is abusing his power with negative aspects. He is a very cocky and prideful character--I really don't like him! 

Now, it's time to talk about the good ole Claudio. I absolutely hate the fact that he agreed with Isabella having sex with Angelo. Dude...THIS IS YOUR SISTER! He also knows that she's in the process of becoming a nun. Where is your respect? That's the question that popped in my mind. I feel that he is very selfish for this and was only thinking about himself. Again, Isabella stands up for herself and puts her foot down! I applaud her for this. I am glad Shakespeare included a woman in his play with wisdom and respect for herself. 

So right now I guess you can say, I am definitely #TeamIsabella! Well for now of course! Claudio and Angelo...not so much! I can't wait until the Friar reveals himself to Angelo. In my mind, this part of the play will be epic! 

#TEAMISABELLA

Two Characters of Confusion

So I feel as though Lord Angelo was the character that our class had the most questions about. For me however, two characters that I had the most questions about were Isabella and the Duke. Something that I do not understand about Isabella was when she left the nunnery to go seek out her brother Claudio after Lucio implores her to go save him. “I will about it straight, No longer staying but to give the Mother Notice of my affair. I humbly thank you. Commend me to my brother. Soon at night I’ll send him certain word of my success.” (Act. 1 scene 4, 94-98) I don’t understand why she was naïve enough to think that she wouldn’t have to partake in some sort of unfavorable act to in order to save Claudio, and why then was she so willing to leave the nunnery? Isabella didn’t spare a second thought to leaving, and yet all she expected she would have to do would be to plead and beg Angelo? I guess I’m just surprised at her quick action and dismayed at her naivety.

            The Duke also confuses me. We talked in class about how he was a coward for letting Angelo step in to reinforce the rules of Vienna, and yet he is a caring coward. No true coward would have lurked around the city in disguise to see what was happening to his people. What I wonder is if he will step in as himself, and not as a disguised friar later in the play. All this advice he is lending out as a friar is well and good but right now his people need him to be rightful king. I am hoping that as we read on into the play Isabella and the Duke will become clearer characters to me.

Middle English vs. "Modern" English

     Going through high school, I read both the Canterbury Tales by Chaucer as well as Hamlet and Much Ado About Nothing by Shakespeare. At the time, I thought Shakespeare was much harder to read than Chaucer; little did I know that I would one day be reading Chaucer again but this time in it's original Middle English. Now that we are reading Measure for Measure, it makes me once again question whether reading Shakespeare or reading Chaucer is easier...
      Chaucer even though it is written in Middle English with hard-to-understand spelling and much different pronunciations, it was written so that anybody could read it. He wrote in "layman's terms." The stories are not too complicated (other than those like the Knight's), and his humor is written plainly; the Miller's tale contains the word "fart" at more than one instance. Chaucer does allude to various philosophical, biblical, and historical ideas and stories, but in the end he is simply portraying humanity at its core. Readers are introduced to people of all backgrounds and personalities, and Chaucer does not sugar-coat even the most raunchy of personalities.
     Shakespeare also portrays humanity's flaws but in a different light. The reader, or more appropriately the audience, has to pay attention to every detail. Shakespeare is the master of metaphors. His comedies are funny, but at times hard to understand with such outstanding metaphors standing in the way of the audiences' understanding. However, the spelling is more understandable to modern day readers. One does not have to reread over and over to understand certain words such as "wight." The only instances one has to go back to reread are those metaphors that catch me and maybe some of you off-guard at times.
    So the decision is up to you, is Chaucer easier to understand, or is Shakespeare?



Link: http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/bro/lowres/bron70l.jpg




Link:
http://tschinka.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/shakespeare-10.jpg

Blog challenge: post one of five!!

I'm going to chuck us back to Faustus for a bit. Sorry to those who have already moved on. On the subject of God totally forgiving Faustus and being all 'come on back to the flock bro', I just don't see it happening. I realise God is meant to be this great forgiving dude but I also think he's a business man. Faustus made is contract with Lucifer and I think God would honour that. He'd be sad about the whole business, for a like a second, because let's face it, he's a busy dude, but I think he'd moved on pretty quickly. In my reading of the story Faustus was lost to God the second he signed that contract. Sorry bro, you sold your soul to the devil for twenty-four years of fun.

On that note, Faustus is sooo lame. Sure a prank here and there (a la his early pranks, not the cruel ones of later years) is okay if you have infinite power but you have infinite power! Do something great! I don't care if that great thing is also terrible (hello he-who-must-not-be-named). Just do something that makes a difference. Why screw over the poor guys you run into when you could cure the plague (again). You could make scientific or philosophical breakthroughs. Instead you spend your remaining 24 years dicking around like an overgrown frat boy? Come on man.

Initial impression of Measure for Measure

I'm actually enjoying Measure for Measure, which is not something I thought I would be saying...or rather, typing. The first time I read the first scene, I was completely and utterly lost. But, once I went over it again, it made more sense, and the rest of the act as well as act two seemed to fall into place. Now I find myself genuinely curious about how the play will continue on.

That being said, I loathe Angelo. A lot. I don't see how he thinks it is a brilliant idea to make Isabelle have sex with him in order to free Claudio. He is asking Isabelle to do the same thing her brother is in jail for. That makes perfect sense. Angelo is just super sketchy, and I hope Isabelle continues to keep saying no to him....Sorry, Claudio.

Furthermore, I don't understand why the Duke gave all of his power to Angelo while he is away. I think Escalus should have been given the Duke's power, but he isn't even considered. I'm assuming we will eventually find out why the Duke chose Angelo, and I just hope he has a solid reason.

It's almost as if the power the Duke has given Angelo has gone straight to his head, so I would like to see someone knock him down a peg. Perhaps that someone will be Isabelle.

Utopia Today

(Sorry to jump back so far but this has been mouldering in the back of my mind for a while now.)

Thinking about Utopia, even today we're still a long way off.  But it isn't an even progression.  In some ways we have achieved parts of Utopia.  

Certain aspects of Utopia can actually be found in our culture.  We certainly have a lot more leisure time now than they did when this book was first published.  Six hours of work a day for seven days a week gives 42 hours of work per week, very close to the 40 hour work week expected here in the US.  And while it is debatable how well a family can live on that income, it is undeniable that we are closer to that aspect of Utopia than we used to be.  Leisure and free time activities are a large and thriving part of our daily lives.

Education is another facet of Utopia we mirror.  In the US, a child has access to basic education no matter how poor his family may be.  Admittedly, the quality of education varies drastically from place to place, but it's still a step in the right direction.  And with all the information available at libraries, on the internet (if you know how to sort through the misinformation) and all of it for free, anyone with drive, discipline and an internet connection can become an expert in any of a wide variety of fields.

I'd like to know what other people think.  Obviously, some aspects of Utopia are basically obsolete or generally undesirable, and we're still a ways off on others, but would you agree that we have achieved Utopia in a few areas of life?  Are there any parts of Utopia existing today that I overlooked?

(1 of 5)

Isabella's justification

I was baffled today by the question “was Isabella’s choice justified?” and not because I didn’t know the answer: because there is a clear answer and I’m a little bit disgusted that it was actually a question being asked.

No one is ever obligated to justify not wanting to have sex with someone else. Maybe Angelo grossed her out, maybe he was creepy, maybe she really wanted to be a nun, or maybe she just doesn't swing for that team. None of these questions/justifications are necessary. Isabella didn't want to sleep with him, end of story. It doesn't matter if her brother is going to die because of it, it is her choice and her choice should be respected, not scrutinized for how justified it was.

Not to mention that even if you read the story without the scene we watched in mind, even if you interpret it as word for word what is written and no more, Angelo is trying to coerce her into sex. He is using her brother’s death as blackmail for her body. That is rape and she had every right to say no to him.

Sorry, this just bothered me so much during class and I had to post about it.

Faustus: What He Deserves

So there was a lot of talk about Doctor Faustus on Monday about the point in the play, if any, where Faustus no longer deserves any mercy if he chooses to repent to God for all his philandering with Mephistophilis and Lucifer and what-not. Some people thought he no longer deserved mercy when his "pranks" started to get a little out of hand. Others thought the point was more towards the end, when he tries to repent, but ends up doing it to the wrong person.

Personally, I pitied Faustus the moment I started reading and learned more about him. He feels incredibly lonely and unappreciated. All he wants is a friend and to feel some semblance of power, so he is easily swayed by Mephistophilis when he is promised ultimate power for however long he desires, so long as he sells his soul to Lucifer.

The only thing that bugs me about Faustus is what he chooses to do with his unlimited new found power. He pulls pranks. That's all. And they're pretty lame. He doesn't choose to do something worthwhile with his power that people would remember him by, which is one of the seemingly biggest personal problems he has before he sells his soul, not feeling appreciated. To me, Faustus is a child. An innocent, immature, lonely child who doesn't feel like any one understands or appreciates him.

So yeah, in conclusion, after I had done some pondering, I decided that there isn't a point in the novel where Faustus doesn't deserve mercy. For the most part, the pranks he pulls are harmless, and he made the decision to sell his soul out of loneliness and desperation. The only mistake Faustus makes is not asking for forgiveness before he is torn limb from limb. He sort of just accepts his fate and takes it. So what does everyone else think? At which point, if there is a point, do you think Faustus no longer deserves any mercy and why?

Faustus the scum canoe

We talked a lot about the moment when Faustus could no longer redeem himself in the play, and I could be the jerk that says, "Well of course it was as soon as he signed the contract," but I do agree that if that wasn't the point, then I feel like it had to be when he turned from playing silly Pope pranks to just being a bully with no sense of reward.

In the very beginning, when Faustus makes the plan to sell his soul for some lame prize that he doesn't think through, he's visited by his shoulder angels. And every time these characters show up, I can only think of one thing--Kronk from Emperor's New Groove.

While Kronk's situation is a much more light-hearted one, (oh no, I don't want to kill the now-llama Emperor anymore!) I feel like the exchange is fairly similar. I don't believe the angels in either case really help make a decision. Kronk, while he works for the evil, ancient Ezma, he's generally a good guy at heart and I'm sure he would have saved Kusco regardless of whether or not his shoulder angels showed up.
And in the case of Faustus, I'm pretty sure, regardless of the arguments his shoulder angels make, he would have chosen the "path that rocks" (or you know, the path of eternal damnation). And that's not to say that Faustus started off as a bad person so clearly he'd make the bad choice, but I feel like he is also too prideful to turn back on his decision. Especially once he goes so far as signing the contract even though his own blood was trying to stop that from happening.
And so he takes a silly deal where he gets 24-years of cool magic for cool pranks, but he really just becomes a huge jerk at the end. In the beginning his pranks could be seen as fairly good, especially since they were against such nasty people. But then he moves on to pranking these innocent people that have done no wrong towards Faustus nor anyone else. And at the point I feel like he shouldn't have the opportunity to redeem himself. He's had four acts or so to do that, and instead he falls more and more prey to the "evilness" of the Devil.
So sure, Faustus could really redeem himself up until fairly close to the end of the play, but I'm not so sure if he would have taken God up on the offer. He was given the chance so many times and never took it, so his call for redemption when he was literally being dragged into hell seemed like such a pointless cry for help.
It's like the boy who cried wolf, except in this case he put off redemption and put off redemption until the time came where he realised the weight of his decision, but God was so totally over it at the point that he wasn't going to help Faustus.

Pity for the Not-So-Good Doctor

I have had Dr.Faustus on the brain for a good part of the day and I am starting to rethink my earlier callous conclusions about his redeem-ability as well as whether or not he is worthy of empathy. In hindsight, I'm actually kind of ashamed at my immediate dismissal of him as a character worth nothing but derision. Now I see a man disillusioned and lonely, who feels forsaken by God and, as Adelai mentioned, lacks the faith necessary to deal with uncertainty. His story mirrors that of an addict the euphoric beginnings, the slow degradation and the slide into certain hell. Through this lens he becomes an object of pity.

5 Ways Faustus is like an addict

1. He is desperately lonely and disillusioned leaving him vulnerable to poor decisions such making deals with the devil. Also, he shows a determination to this path even though the devil himself tells him it is a bad idea. Heck, his own body shows hesitancy when his blood congeals before he is able to sign the contract and yet he allows Mephistopheles to warm it back to inky consistency!

2. At first he is flying high - literally in a chariot pulled by dragons through the cosmos but...

3. All too soon he is reduced to a clown, begging for attention and playing cruel pranks on those whose circumstances lesser than his own. Which leads to -

4. He becomes so obnoxious that even Mephistopheles distances himself from him. In scene 4, his devil on loan is only found when called. He is becoming more alone.

5. He realizes too late that he has friends. It is not until his hour of death is nigh that Faustus recognizes the scholars as people who care about him. By then it is too late - only because Faustus himself believes it is. The old man tells him that redemption is right there in the form of an angel over his head and yet he refuses to believe it and has the old man punished for his efforts. God and man will forgive Faustus if only he would forgive himself.

1 of  5

Squandering Power

Alright, so today in class we were discussing Dr. Faustus and if he deserved to be redeemed and go to heaven or to burn in hell for all eternity. Then, we started to talk about how Faustus used his power; which leads me to the topic of this blog: squandering of power.

Now, it is blatantly obvious to anyone who's read the whole play through that Dr. Faustus that Faustus does, indeed, squander his power. We already discussed that this was meant to frustrate the audience, but was it also used as a way to further push the audience to want Faustus to burn?

I think that if the play ended with God descending from heaven and bringing Faustus up with Him, then the audience would be kind of peeved off. And by kinda, I mean very.

I just can't imagine seeing someone who already had such a good life, decide it's not good enough, and then sells his soul to Satan just to pull cheesy pranks on everyone instead of doing some good with his life. Granted, you still aren't doing much "good" with the power of Satan (unless, you're the Ghost Rider of course).

Still, Faustus still could've done something so dastardly evil, like wage war against heaven or something.

I guess, if the play was written where Faustus used his deeds for good, then I kinda have a feeling it would probably be really similar to the plot of Ghost Rider (you know, dude signs his soul over to Satan with good intentions...ends up doing other cool stuff instead...you get it). Also, they would not have had the technology to produce a scene as awesome as this one back then, so I guess it all worked out for the best.

Also, I just realized that with this hell power, Faustus could essentially be Ghost Rider. I mean, he did have the power, just not the desire to do good for anyone other than himself.

I guess if Faustus truly used his powers for evil, then I guess the answer to the grand question of if he deserves to go to hell would be made too easy. It's the general consensus that bad guys burn and good guys get to ride off into the sunset after all.

Faustus' Last Monologue

Well, we all knew how this play would end, didn't we? It's no surprise to anyone that Faustus would be getting his one-way ticket into Hell in due time. What we might have not predicted was the way that he handled his imminent damnation. Throughout the entire play we're shown this character who, despite his astounding naivety, is fairly level-headed, at least at first.

As the play progresses, so does Faustus' own personality deteriorate. His pranks are petty, if slightly harmless, but it isn't long before they descend into being downright cruel. Yet despite Faustus' cruelty in his mischief, he still manages to retain that same child-like haughtiness and, in a very light sense of the word, innocence.

This all seems to crumble apart come the last hour of his life on line 140 in Act V scene 2. Upon completely isolating himself from everyone around him, Faustus starts to do the one thing that so many of the characters had begged him to do before, pray for salvation. Up until this very point he has done nothing but shield his true self behind a facade of either curious indifference or boredom.

I don't know about you guys, but this was probably the first time that I've felt legitimately bad for Faustus. I've been sympathetic of his loneliness, sure, but reading his final cry for help being directed towards Mephistophilis of all people, one of the ones dragging him into Hell, really sucker punched me in the gut, and it made me really dearly Faustus cared for him, just in his own selfish way.

Anyone else feel differently about Faustus after this?

Benvolio (Doctor Faustus) Confusion!

Okay, so I have came to the conclusion that I honestly do not like this book. I just can't connect with it for some reason. However, I would like to talk about the character Benvolio and his horns. First, I want to talk about this one line that Benvolio said because I thought it was pretty interesting. "...for they say if a man be drunk overnight the devil cannot hurt him in the morning. If that be true, I have a charm in my head shall control him as well as the conjurer, I warrant you" (55). These lines have so much meaning, it is just hard for me to figure out what they mean! At this point, I believe Benvolio is planning to attack or seek revenge on Faustus. However, what does this mean "...for they say if a man be drunk overnight the devil cannot hurt him in the morning..." (55)? Maybe I am thinking too much about these lines and it really doesn't have much meaning. I was thinking maybe it meant that when a man is drunk he cannot remember his actions, so the devil cannot harm him the next morning in anyway? So could this mean that Benvolio plan is to be intoxicated and seek revenge upon Faustus? The next morning, Benvolio will not receive any hurt because the "devil" (Faustus) cannot attack him? 

I know this seems really confusing, but this is how much these lines are driving me crazy. Maybe one of you could help me analyze them?? 

Now, what do the horns that were placed on Benvolio's head symbolize? I thought of maybe it was to resemble shame or to label him as a outcast. This is because on page 59 around line 106, Benvolio says" 'Sblood, I am never able to endure these torments". So Faustus places these horns on Benvolio because he is a believer in God? Also, because Benvolio wants Faustus dead? Line 22 page 61 states, "If Faustus die, Take you the wealth, leave us the victory." Could this mean that Faustus places the horns on Benvolio because Benvolio is planning to kill him? I feel like I am missing some reasoning of why Faustus and Benvolio want to attack one another. Maybe it is because one is a believer in God and the other is a devil. Lastly, after reading a little more I realized that there was a fight between the devils (Mephostophilis, Faustus, etc..) and the soldiers (Benvolio, Frederick, etc). The devils leave Benvolio, Frederick and Martino heads and faces bloody and they all have horns! Hmmm... What does all of this mean????????????????????

A Fallen Angel’s Pain

(FYI: my version of the play is on my I Pad and only gives me page numbers and not line numbers)

My favorite part, by far, of the play, Doctor Faustus, is the character Mephistopheles. When Dr. Faustus asks Mephistopheles about hell “First I will question with thee about hell. Tell me where is the place that men call hell?” (31). Mephistopheles responds with “[Hell is] within the bowels of these elements, where we are tortur’d and remain for ever; Hell hath no limits, nor is it circumscrib’d in one self place ; for where we are is hell, and where hell is there must we ever be” (31).

Before this Mephistopheles states how hell pains him, “…I who saw the face of God, and tasted the eternal joys of Heaven, [I am] tormented with ten thousand hells, in being depriv’d of everlasting bliss” (21).

This reminded me of the movie Dogma, written and directed by Kevin Smith (director of the Jay and Silent Bob stoner movies). When the fallen angel Bartleby rants to Loki about God’s love and forgiveness of his favorite creation (man) and how as angels they must constantly feel the absence of God. (It’s a great movie, I highly recommend it).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSQYRq8kf4g  (sorry for the advertisement)

In artwork from around the period Doctor Faustus was written, the Devil was commonly depicted as blue or black. The color blue was chosen (as I believe) to represent the coldness the devil and demons feel no longer being warmed by God’s love. Without God there is nothing. According to physics you cannot add cold, you can only remove heat. Without God there is nothing, removing everything from life. Essentially, in the realm of physics, hell could only be darkness and cold, void of everything. Like cold, you cannot add darkness, only remove light. I find this an incredibly interesting concept. Even more so is the transition of the interpretation of the Devil and hell. Here he is blue, later he is half-beast/half-human, then red with fire and brimstone, and then in class we agreed that the Devil would simply be an attractive person. The Bible also supports a blue devil with the hot/cold interpretation in Revelations 3:15-16—I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

This means (in my understanding) that you are either hot (passionate) for the Lord our God or are cold (uncaring) of Him. Then there are those who feel he exists, but do not love Him or worship Him and to God these people are just as bad and he will spew them from his mouth and cast them aside. Indifference is worse than cold in God’s eyes.

Giotto’s The Last Judgment, painted in 1306, shows this tormenting and tormented blue devil:

 

http://www.julianporterqc.com/images/giotto.jpg

Is it just me?

  In class on Wednesday we talked about the clowns that appear at the end of every scene, and how they are the comic relief in a very dark and confusing play. I’m fairly certain that Christopher Marlowe wanted the reader to view the clowns like this:

<http://www.midlifecrisisqueen.com/2010/08/30/another-great-story-from-my-court-jester/>

While I know the clowns are meant to be seen as the above picture, I can’t help thinking of them like the silly, not all there hyena from The Lion King.

<http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/hyenas-from-lion-king/images/27969421/title/hyenas-fanart>

Perhaps it’s my childhood obsession with Disney movies or it’s my way of subconsciously connecting anything and everything to Disney that has brought me here. Anyone else see the clowns in a manner different from the way they were intended?