What Goes Around Doesn't Really Come Around

So I've always been obsessed with titles of novels and plays. How do these titles relate to the plot or theme or characters? Sometimes the titles are so obscure that I just give up. In our last discussion of the novel, we were discussing the Duke's motives and his actions. He wanted to whip the people back into shape because they were lazy fat lions. By giving power to Angelo, a cold-hearted tyrant, the Duke is effectively ensuring people began to obey the rules without doing so himself. The Duke is also analyzing or "measuring" the performance of Angelo in his absence. Is he really a good employee? Is he someone to be trusted? It's cool, I guess. So I figured that's why the play is entitled Measure for Measure; the Duke is measuring Angelo's performance. But, when I think of the phrase "measure for measure," it reminds of "what goes around comes around" or "you reap what sow." I just think it means that I'll give you or do to you exactly what you give me or do to me. So I was trying to figure out how the Duke is able to apply the punishment or sentence that Angelo deserves. In my opinion, Angelo doesn't get what he deserves. He gets married. What kind of punishment is that for almost executing a man and blackmailing a female into sex. This isn't "measure for measure." I'm just confused. I guess it all ties back into idea of mercy and justice as we discussed in class. Though, I may think death or at least jail would have righted the wrongs of Angelo, maybe an unwanted marriage was a far worst punishment. Welp...here my thoughts to wrap up Measure for Measure.

Blog Challenge Post 2 of 5.

Elizabethan Reality: "Undercover Duke"

     As we were wrapping up our final thought on Measure for Measure last class, I couldn't help but notice how this play can parallel as an Elizabethan version of “Undercover Boss.” For those that are unfamiliar with this television show, “Undercover Boss” follows CEO's who disguise themselves and go to work base-level jobs inside their own businesses unbeknownst to their employees. As amusing as this might sound, I envision the Duke as being the original “undercover boss.”

      I realize several people were annoyed with the Duke for leaving his post; and, in some ways, I can see how the Duke could be blamed for everything going to pot in his absence.  The Duke did leave an immoral hypocrite in power when he clearly should not have been in any sort of authoritative role.  Furthermore, his being MIA nearly culminated in the loss of a life that could have been preserved under his own rule.  But I personally found myself much more amused than annoyed with the Duke.  To some extent, I even wanted to congratulate him for setting things up so Angelo's corruption was so clearly unveiled.  If the Duke hadn't left and Angelo hadn't risen to such a level of control, Angelo's true character and nature would not have been revealed to the extent that it ultimately was.  If all this hadn't happened, Angelo would have remained with power he was underserving of.  In fact, I believe that perhaps the Duke's “holiday of sorts" was a rather bold and clever scheme that can be easily likened to the modern reality show - “Undercover Boss.”  Using his disguise, the Duke was able to see firsthand the ways issues were dealt with in his absence, just as the CEOs in the show are able to nose around their businesses as disguised employees to analyze efficiency, productivity and customer service elements, etc.     

This link will connect you to a more visual representation of the kind of snarky B.A. reveal I would like to imagine the Duke pulls off when he pitches his friar disguise to the wayside. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZYvt_pEolo

Another example of Mephistopheles ruinin' some lives (though Faustus had it coming)

SWOOSH

That's the sound of us traveling back in time to when I originally meant to post this, while we were reading Doctor Faustus. (It's interesting to me how many of us continue to post about this play. We all have so much to say that didn't fit into our class time!)

Anyway, what I was thinking about the whole time we wee learning about this play, was the album by the Trans-Siberian Orchestra, "Beethoven's Last Night." (Yes, they do have albums that have music other than Christmas.)

This album is a concept album which means that it tells a single story through the songs. It also comes with a booklet where you can read the story along with it.

The premise of this story is that it is Beethoven's last night on earth. He is going to die that night (though he doesn't know this at the beginning.) He is working on his tenth symphony when he is visited by Mephistopheles who tells him that he has come to collect his soul. he then makes him to offer that if Beethoven gives Mephistopheles all his music and allows him to wipe the memory of his compositions off the face of the earth, he will give him back his soul. The story is about Beethoven trying to decide what he wants.

Obviously this story of making contracts with the devil is a popular one, since we see it so often throughout literature. In the Canterbury Tales, there's also a story of a man meeting with the devil.

You can read the basic story here.

This song is called "Mephistopheles" and is sung by- you guessed it- Mephistopheles as he introduces himself:

And in this next video you can listen to the whole album (which you totally don't have to but there's some musical masterpieces in there (in my opinion of course!)

My favorite is "Mephistopheles' Return," in case you were wondering :)

Faustus's Fear of the Question Mark

     Originally as I read Doctor Faustus in a the literal sense, I was genuinely bothered and perplexed by Faustus's act of selling his soul to the devil. I couldn't imagine what drove him to go to such extreme measures. Eventually, I found peace in a more figurative reading, but I also settled on the idea that Faustus just couldn't handle uncertainty.

     This uncertainty that Faustus tries to shake begins as soon as he signs the bloodily- instated contract.  What does he do immediately? He asks about Hell – he wants to know about something unknown.  Faustus must have been aware that, in Heaven, souls would be privy to “knowing all,” but he wasn't willing to wait to find out if he'd ever even get there. So Faustus decides to find another route to a state of “enlightenment:” through the devil.

     Now I know I mentioned this a few weeks back when we were actively discussing this play, but I never completely voiced my final thoughts on the subject.  And the more I think about it, the more I believe that, given what we learn about Faustus's character, this scholarly character was not keen on anything abstract or ambiguous.  After all, as an intelligent fellow in the business of learning, it would seem easy for him to neglect to leave room for the spiritual aspect of faith. And this proves to be what ultimately ends up getting him into trouble.

    Faustus displays a lack of faith inasmuch he refuses to trust that God would allow his salvation before his “great sin” (the contract), but also after.  He fails to believe God will protect him should he attempt to repent; and although the demons threaten to tear him apart should he try to flee Hades's grasp, was this not that his final fate anyway? What did he have to lose? He had Heaven to gain if his redemption was accepted and only to fall back on his future in Hell if not!

     In this piece, it is clear that well-educated and intelligent Faustus aspires to know all.  It is no fluke these characteristics are present for they are vital for his character development.  To use a cliché, knowledge is power to Faustus.  He believes he can take authorial power over his fate, taking it into his own hands. But in the end, does Faustus believe that eliminating uncertainty is really worth the cost?

Sin & Salvation as it Pertains to Faustus's Contract

     So, as I read Doctor Faustus, I found myself wondering what exactly was meant by the act of selling one's soul to the Devil. What does this “transaction” so-to-speak precisely entail? For one thing, Faustus obviously deliberately turns away from God and essentially “does business” with the devil. But what do these satanic dealings mean in terms of his salvation in the long run? If continued without repentance, we assume he's guaranteed a spot in Hell. And according to the play, he is indeed eternally damned.  Moreover the “contract,” which is signed with blood, seemingly signifies a level of permanence. Yet doesn't every contract have its own set of loopholes? Furthermore, if this deal with the devil is permanent and Faustus's fate is sealed, why did we discuss mercy in class? And why are we asking ourselves when Faustus reaches the “point of no return” (where not even God will take him back) in this tale? All this leads me to believe that this “contract” is only as “good” as the parties involved make it.  So if one wanted out (eg: a repentant Faustus), it would have been nullified.  After all, we're led to believe God is all-merciful if we are penitent. . .right?

     

     With all this said and done, though, my burning question in terms of this text still remains: what is the difference between our idea of sin and Faustus's contract with the devil? We know that Faustus's contract with the devil is a sin (the act of turning away from God), but is not sin a sort of contract with the devil? Are they not one and the same? Is the contract not simply the state of being in sin? If it is, I would venture to argue that Faustus's soul was salvable up until his death should he have repented his sins – his dealings with the devil himself.   If God is a forgiving entity as He is indicated to be, why should Faustus's actions have been unforgivable. . . unless it was he who wasn't able to forgive himself.  

The Duke of Dork

I've struggled with this, but I just do not like the Duke. Whenever I picture him I see this:

Just ewww. 

So now that you have Tim Curry playing the ever sleazy Cardinal from "Three Musketeers" (the real one) in your head, I'm going to give you Sara's Top Ten Reasons The Duke Stinks

1. He forces Angelo to take on his job and then sneaks back in to spy on him.

2. He dresses as a friar and uses the disguise to manipulate Isabella and Marianna.

3. He tells Marianna that replacing Isabella is not a sin because she has a contract with Angelo - the same conditions under which Claudio has been condemned and Juliet imprisoned.

4. He manipulates Isabella and Marianna for pretty much the entire play.

5. He uses Claudio's death, or lack thereof, as leverage against Isabella - not telling her until just before he pops the question.

6. He punishes the daylights out of Lucio for things he says to/about him while he is disguised as the Friar. Yes, I get it, Lucio is really annoying but the punishment was petty and personal. Making an honest woman of the prostitute he left with child would have sufficed.

7. He doesn't solve anything! All of his worry about lax follow through of laws and his actions ends with a petty round of an eye for an eye or "Measure for Measure."

8. He uses his sneaky leverage to get the girl - I think. As far as I can tell, Isabella never says yes.

9. He expects Angelo to do the job he is not capable of and faults him for being as lecherous as himself (If Lucio is to be believed).

10. Well, number ten is  - All of this adds up to a Duke who is as much of a "scum canoe" as Angelo.


2 of 5

Mercy and Justice more like Mercy OR Justice

While reading the end of the play, I couldn't get the discussion we had in class about Mercy and Justice out of my mind. I was subconsciously asking myself if mercy was being given or if justice was served. I was starting to get annoyed at how much thought I was putting into this topic, and then in the last act of the play, I realized mercy and justice, while they are applicable to anyone's life, are up to the readers interpretation.

The end of the play seems kind of abrupt, like Shakespeare got tired of writing and just wanted to be done, there really isn't much explanation to the decisions that are made by Angelo, Marianna, The Duke, and Isabella. Which at first didn't make any sense but after reading the act one more time. I realized that, at least in my eyes, mercy isn't given and justice isn't served.

The way I see it, Angelo settles for Marianna because he finally had someone who would have sex with him. He married her solely for one reason and one reason only. He could care less what happens to her as long as she is where he needs to her to be, when he wants it. As for Isabella completely abandoning her path to the nunnery  and marrying The Duke. It's almost as if Isabella knew that she was not going to have the same kind of respect as the other Nuns because of her  and her brothers actions, that she just said screw it. 

Even after reading this act multiple times, I'm still baffled by the outcome.

#TeamClaudio or #TeamIsabella

After reading Act 3, Scene 1, I'm not exactly sure how I feel about the outcome. We just found out Angelo's proposition in e last act. If I was in Isabella's shoes, I would have said HELL NO, just like she did. But then I would seriously have to think about it because my sibling's life would be on the line.

Once Isabella goes to the prison to talk to Claudio, she finally tells her brother what Angelo said. At first, Claudio totally agrees with Isabella's decision. He says "thou shalt not do't" (Line 116). It's up for debate on how this line would be performed. I felt the sincerity and that he knows how important Isabella's chastity is to her. He had to know she was working on becoming a nun. This makes me very much Team Claudio. For him to say this first before questioning Isabella's descion, means a lot in my eyes. Once he does question the proposition, it's not like he's mean or harsh to Isabella. He basically says "it wouldn't be too horrible if you slept with Angelo". 

If my sibling was in a terrible situation and that was my only option, Angelowould definitely have to be decent looking for me to consider it. I'm sorry, but if I'm saving your unlawful ass the man better be somewhat good looking. I do, however, understand why Isabella chooses not to follow through with the plan. Their time period and today's time period are EXTREMELY different, especially with perceptions of premarital sex. If Isabella chose to sleep with Angelo, her life would be literally over; no nunnery or even respect from anyone. It would even get better after life; hell for eternity!!!

Overall, I understand Isabella, but I would totally save my sibling regardless. It would be different if Claudio had committed a horrible crime. All he did was sleep with a woman he loves and plans on marrying. It's not right that Isabella is being asked to break the very same law to save her brother, but what other choice is there?

Was Justice Served?

This is a question I have been pondering since I finished Measure for Measure last night, and I have not been able to come up with a satisfying answer.

As much as I dislike Angelo, I am glad he did not die...I think. I'm actually not sure on that one. I do know, however, that I'm annoyed he married Marianna. I know that was supposed to be a punishment because he left Marianna and made people believe she had sex, but I don't understand how being married to a woman who loves him - despite all of his gigantic flaws - can be considered a punishment. While death may have been too severe, I would have accepted Angelo being locked up for a while or something. I just feel like he didn't really get what he deserved.

I totally did not foresee the Duke asking Isabelle to marry him. Am I the only one? That kind of came out of nowhere to me. And did she say yes? I mean, at the end the Duke told her what's mine is yours and what's yours is mine (Act 5, Scene 1), but did she respond to his proposal at all? Maybe she did and I just missed it. Anyway, I was super surprised by that. I am also glad Claudio got to marry Juliet. He didn't deserve to be in prison at all (in my opinion), so I am happy he was able to be with Juliet again.

Overall, I'm kind of dissatisfied with the ending of the play. I really liked to first four acts, but the last act bugged me. I don't feel like justice was served for Angelo, and the Duke's proposal to Isabelle bothers me. She wanted to be a nun. She refused Angelo's offer to save Claudio because she did not want to be dammed to Hell, only to have the Duke ask for her hand in marriage. I understand that a relationship between them would be very different than what Angelo had in mind, but it still bothers me. I wish she could continue on her journey to becoming a nun, not being stuck with the Duke. I mean, can you really say no to a Duke?

Wowie wow wow; In Which I Make a Strange Comparison

SO today in class (yesterday, really), when we started to talk about Angelo's scumminess and his general self-awareness, and his creepy lust for Isabella, I started to think about other characters with the same amount of ick and self-righteousness.

As per usual, my brain danced it's way to Disneyworld.

I hope that y'all remember "The Hunchback of Notre Dame". Because, to me, Angelo is definitely exhibiting some Frollo-like tendencies over here (Speaking of more Victor Hugo characters; I saw the Javert comparison, and that was GREAT).

The scumminess and righteous/just/cold Carl attitude, the crazy lust for a fairly innocent maiden who just wants to do her own thing, while trying to do the right thing... It's intense, man. Especially when I start to think of Angelo singing "Hellfire", because then things get weird but they start to make a whole bucketload of sense.

Frollo knows he shouldn't be lusting for Esmerelda, but he cannot stop himself. And if he cannot have her, than no one can. He even attempts to guilt her into having sex with him so she can 'save' the gypsy camp. Disney gets dark, man. I rewatched this in my history class in high school, and it was definitely not the same film I remember as a youngster. But that's okay.

So. What do y'all think?!

2 of 5

Living in Utopia

I can't say I would care to be a resident of Utopia as it was described in the book.  Mind you, if I were allowed to change a bunch of things then I'd be all for it.  Of course, a lot of the things I didn't care for, such as making women subordinate to men and no provision for privacy, are due to societal changes that have taken place since the book was written.  I also find the idea of not having a place to call my own a bit unsettling.  Honestly, I find it easier to give up personal property than the idea of home.  But when you get right down to it, most of the things I was the most uncomfortable with were things that were products of society at that time.

If More had suggested that women in Utopia were treated the same as men, that would have seemed very odd then.  It might have even affected the popularity of the book, since logically most men would not have wanted women to get any crazy ideas.  And until it was mentioned in class, it had never occurred to me that privacy just wasn't a thing then.  So if most of the problems I had with Utopia originated from the author's society, what would Utopia look like if it had been written recently?

I find myself thinking first of the internet, probably because I spend a lot of time on it.  I feel that Utopia would have to have widespread access to the internet; otherwise I couldn't consider it a free society, and if it isn't a free society then it isn't a utopia.  What's more, the internet (or at least interconnectedness) allows for higher efficiency in many areas of work.  A catastrophic accident created a food shortage?  No need to send a runner to all nearby towns hoping they have a surplus, we'll just hop on the government website and see who has the most food to spare.

Leisure time was a vaunted and attractive part of Utopia.  Of course, now we have a good amount of leisure time.  Does this mean the new Utopia will have even shorter workdays?  With the advent of technology like the combine harvester, considerably fewer people would be needed to run the farms. More and more factory work is automated.  And as for spending all that leisure time, the internet provides vast opportunities for both entertainment and learning.

Advances in food production and crop yield mean that starvation should never be a concern.  After all, the world produces enough food today to feed everyone; distribution is the problem.  In Utopia, that issue would be eradicated.  This means that Utopians could either devote less land to food production, or could reap a surplus of food and trade it to their neighbors.

The modern world is a complicated place.  I know I've only scratched the surface of the ways Utopia would be different if it were designed today.  I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks.

2 out of 5

Mercy vs Justice

No, I'm not talking about that song by Kanye West. And  no, I'm not talking about that teenybopper store either. I'm talking about the actual words, what they mean (at least what they mean to me), and how they both play major roles in this play.

Mercy, at least to me, means to have the ability to inflict pain, punishment, death, etc. upon another being but choosing not to. This is a quality I have seen in the Duke as well as Mariana. I've seen this in the Duke when he eventually decides not to sentence Angelo to death. True, it was because Mariana protested against it, but as a duke, he could easily ignore her protests and kill Angelo anyways. Mariana shows mercy towards Angelo because, even though she had been wronged by him, she still forgave him for his actions and wanted him to have life.

So, I suppose good things really do happen to bad people. Angelo better praise Jesus (or Satan) for giving him a merciful woman such as Mariana.

The topic of justice that we discussed in class immediately reminded me of Javert from Les Miserables, which is yet another play (or musical, rather) that is a great illustration of mercy vs. justice. I mean, the dang thing opens with a bunch of dudes pleading for mercy and Javert (the law/justice) basically saying "No. You guys stole bread and now you have to pull this giant ship."

I'm a huge (and I mean HUGE) Les Miserables fan, so let me just include the reprise of the song by Gavroche and the rest of the underprivileged Parisians for your enjoyment. Notice how the privileged few seem to just turn a blind eye to the cries for mercy.

In this play, I believe Valjean represents mercy and Javert represents justice. Valjean shows mercy towards Javert by sparing his life, even though Javert has been a huge scumbucket towards him throughout the entire sequence of events. Javert was acting as the law, because as we all know, he is the law and the law is him.  Law is most commonly associated with justice and...you get it.

Anyways, mercy and justice battle it out throughout both of these plays. Ultimately, if you are looking at both plays through the lens of mercy vs. justice, mercy wins. In the case of Javert and Valjean, I think at the point where Valjean spares Javert's life is the point that shows Javert the dangers of blindly seeking justice without any mercy. I think that this leads Javert to look back on his life and how he had been living it and made him see that justice without mercy is really no way to live a righteous life (and we all know Javert is all about being righteous). So, he kills himself after yet another huge soliloquy and actually succeeds in making the audience feel sorry for him (or at least me).

Also, I ask you to please ignore Russel Crowe's mediocre singing. I just chose this class because the acting is good and I think that seeing the scene acted out really puts the whole thing into context.

Anyways, back to Measure for Measure (FINALLY!). In my opinion, Angelo most closely parallels Javert at least in the scene where Isabella is asking Angelo to show mercy towards her brother. Angelo responds "It is the law, not I, condemn your brother." (Act 2 Scene 2). This is a very Javert-like thing to say. Angelo could very well pardon Isabella's brother because...well...his offence wasn't that bad considering he was getting married to his lover soon (just like all Valjean did was steal some bread to feed his family). However, he showed no mercy and ended up (SPOILER) marrying Mariana. Not as bad as flinging one's self off a bridge, but whatever.

The Duke most closely parallels Valjean due to the fact that he purposefully spares Angelo's life even though killing him would be the most "just" thing to do, at least by the standards set at that time. However, he was merciful and spared him from the death penalty.

So, what I got from this is that, in the end, mercy always wins. But that's just me.

"Measure for Measure" :

So. "Measure for Measure" is actually really interesting! I've never personally read it before, but I know that it is actually my high school English teacher's favorite Shakespeare play as well. This is a fascinating connection between two teachers that actually might have a supernatural origin, but that's beside the point.
I've heard of it called 'a problem play' before, as well, when said English teacher was trying to describe the plot of it before. And, to be honest, I never really grasped what that meant. It was funny, like a comedy, but things weren't so black and white and twin-switchery and such. But that's about it.
Now, though, I think I'm beginning to understand the concept of a problem play, which is nice. It's funny enough, but with wayyy darker tones than most comedies usually have. I also am much more emotionally invested in these characters than I usually get with a Shakespeare comedy. For instance, in "A Midsummer's Night Dream", I really don't care what happens to the characters, as I know it's going to turn out pretty okay at the end. But with a play like "Measure for Measure", I'm genuinely concerned with what's going to happen with Isabelle, and her idiot brother.
This play hurts in a way that a usual 'comedy' would not. I don't want Isabelle to compromise her ideals and what she believes is moral and right in the eyes of God, but I also don't want idiotic Claudio  to die for having sex with the woman he loves. So I'm conflicted, and I can feel the problem here.

(1 of 5)

Blog Challenge...ACCEPTED

     As evident to my blog comments, I have been reading a lot of the recent posts. Although it may be a little late to write about Faustus, I have a few of my own thoughts to share on the reading before I move on to Shakespeare.
     So, I think that Faustus completely deserved what happened to him. His purposeful ignorance towards the good angel's advice was something that I immediately noticed and well, judged him for. I know that we all have moments of weakness, but I'm not quite sure if 24 years and multiple reminders of your horrible decision counts as a "moment" anymore. I think the good angel was more than generous with her thoughts and advice of his repentance, but I'm not sold that God would actually be that forgiving towards him. I believe Lucifer's description of God being "just," was a great observation. I think God would have looked at Faustus in the same way the readers did. I imagine he would look at Faustus and say something along the lines of, "No." Anyway, I think Faustus and Angelo may have been related because they both seem to make horrible decisions so easily!
Dr Faustus:  "Are you suuuuure I didn't make the right decision?" 

    On to Isabelle and Angelo! I have been struggling over my opinion on Isabelle's decision not to have sex with Angelo. I am fully aware that me saying I think she was being a little selfish is politically incorrect, but alas, that is just how I feel. As someone who has a lot of siblings and is very close with each one of them, I couldn't imagine not making a sacrifice to save their lives. I think this is why I am having such a hard time believing that she could so easily and immediately throw the option out of the window.

     I don't agree with Angelo's utter forcefulness, but I am also not surprised by it. His decision to kill Claudio in jail already gives you an idea of what type of person he is. The foreshadowing of his declaration to be treated just as he is treating Claudio for such a crime, was a key tool in my decision. I think his determination for sex is not the main reason he is asking for it. I believe it is the chase Isabelle is giving him and the complete denial of his offer that makes him want her more. As the person soon to be killed, I do not blame Claudio's plea for Isabelle to have sex with Angelo. Although she is a soon-to-be nun and it is important to have respect for someone who makes a major commitment like that, it is probably hard to believe that she will so willingly watch you be killed for something unreasonable. 

    I think it was a mutual agreement of the class that the Duke is clearly a coward. However, it is hard for me to hate him. There are a lot of people in life that will care so much about something or someone that they can't bring themselves to tell them something that they don't want to hear. They will literally go out of their way just to avoid looking like the bad guy while simultaneously looking and acting like the bad guy! I see why he makes the choice to leave and I respect him for his determination to fix the problem (even though he does it under cover). I guess I am saying that some people just don't have it in them to be strict or to potentially hurt feelings, but that doesn't mean they don't care. He clearly loves his people and although he doesn't show it in the way a Duke typically should, I think he is a good person. 

Second Time Around

This is my second time reading Measure for Measure and I was hoping that my feelings for this play would have changed. Sadly, that isn't the case. I find myself comparing my reactions between the first time I read the play and this time.

Angelo has found new ways to make my skin crawl, which I didn't think was possible. It's one thing to be a sleaze ball who wants to jump any girl that breathes, but it's another to be a sleaze ball who wants to sleep with your sister who wants to be a nun. Really Angelo, are you that afraid of any kind of commitment that you have to keep your sister away from convent life?  In the beginning, I thought that Angelo would redeem himself later in the play, which he sort of does, but not enough to change the initial impression I have of him. I guess once a sleaze ball, always a sleaze ball.

This time around, I was really hoping that it has been long enough since my first reading for my subconscious to have forgotten anything and everything about this play that I could look at it from the clean slate perspective. I guess it was as disturbed by such a prevalent character as I was.   

Battle of the Conscience (aka The Shoulder Angels)

http://static.someecards.com/someecards.png

Some of the most intriguing characters for me, in Doctor Faustus, were the good and bad angels acting as Faustus' conscience. I picture the shoulder angel's on his shoulder battling out the right and wrong choice, in this case they are battling over Faustus' soul. Every time these angels appear it is at a point where Faustus is debating whether he can repent his sins and contract with the devil. The Good Angel tries to get Faustus to repent, while the Bad Angel influences him that it is too late to repent and be forgiven.

So, that is the big question in Doctor Faustus; When is it too late to save your soul, and repent your sins? Based on his story, Doctor Faustus seems to be getting played by the Bad Angel. He believes that it is too late to repent his sins, but doesn't that seem obvious? Why wouldn't the Bad angel want him to believe that? Isn't that what they do? It's evil's way of controlling and manipulating a victim. On the other hand, the Good Angel tries to tell Doctor Faustus, that he is able to repent his sins, but he chooses to believe the Bad Angel instead. My interpretation of Faustus' actions, his dismissal of the good and the acceptance of the bad, is that maybe he was all to willing to be affected by evil. Faustus made the decision based on what he really wanted more than what he probably believed.

How easy it is to be influenced by the Bad Angel. We use these "shoulder angels" in our modern to represent the conscience, Watching that inner battle is interesting, and often, in our, time comical. Like Faustus, the Bad Angel often is the winner, who easily persuades the villain or character to make the bad choice. In this video, from The Emperor's New Groove, once again the Bad Angel wins out, but the battle a fight between the two angel's are one of my favorite representations of the conscience battling. While most the time the visual aids we get are a little funny, Faustus' consequence is tragic, with the payment being the loss of his soul and the decent into Hell.

http://youtu.be/RK5n-X-Jlbk

Post 1 of 5