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?
Showing posts with label Taylor Murphy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taylor Murphy. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Thursday, October 31, 2013
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.
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.
Friday, October 25, 2013
Faustus the Fool
I feel bad for Faustus at the end of the play. I understand that he signed his soul over to the devil, but he was just so helpless at the end. Despite his flaws, I pity him. Or maybe I pity him because of his flaws.
He just had this hope that when he signed his soul over, he would live this awesome life, but I don't think that happened. He plays pranks on the Pope, gives a guy some horns and let's someone take his leg. That just doesn't seem like the grand life Faustus had in mind.
In the last act, it seems like Faustus is still doing the basic magic tricks he was in the beginning of the play. The scholars want to see Helen of Greece, so Faustus makes her appear. I just feel like Faustus didn't really live a life worth giving up his soul for. If he knows he's going to Hell, why didn't he live it up?
We were asked where we think Faustus can no longer receive mercy, and I think that point comes after Faustus sends away the old man and the three scholars who visit him. After the old man leaves, Faustus plans to pledge himself to the devil once again. Faustus says, "Torment, sweet friend, that base and aged man/that durst dissuade me from thy Lucifer" (81, 82-83). The old man is trying to help Faustus be worthy of heaven again, but he just brushes it aside.
After this, Faustus talks about how Mephostophilis robbed him of the joys of heaven, but he doesn't really do anything about. The fact that he waits an hour before he is to be taken to Hell to beg God for forgiveness doesn't really help his situation. If he wanted to be saved, he should have done it sooner.
I feel bad for him because Hell is described in a very terrifying way, but he should have tried to redeem himself a lot sooner if he didn't want to spend eternity there.
He just had this hope that when he signed his soul over, he would live this awesome life, but I don't think that happened. He plays pranks on the Pope, gives a guy some horns and let's someone take his leg. That just doesn't seem like the grand life Faustus had in mind.
In the last act, it seems like Faustus is still doing the basic magic tricks he was in the beginning of the play. The scholars want to see Helen of Greece, so Faustus makes her appear. I just feel like Faustus didn't really live a life worth giving up his soul for. If he knows he's going to Hell, why didn't he live it up?
We were asked where we think Faustus can no longer receive mercy, and I think that point comes after Faustus sends away the old man and the three scholars who visit him. After the old man leaves, Faustus plans to pledge himself to the devil once again. Faustus says, "Torment, sweet friend, that base and aged man/that durst dissuade me from thy Lucifer" (81, 82-83). The old man is trying to help Faustus be worthy of heaven again, but he just brushes it aside.
After this, Faustus talks about how Mephostophilis robbed him of the joys of heaven, but he doesn't really do anything about. The fact that he waits an hour before he is to be taken to Hell to beg God for forgiveness doesn't really help his situation. If he wanted to be saved, he should have done it sooner.
I feel bad for him because Hell is described in a very terrifying way, but he should have tried to redeem himself a lot sooner if he didn't want to spend eternity there.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Utopia: Undoubtedly the Opposite Place I Admire
Am I the only one sincerely missing Book I of Utopia right now? Dr. MB really hit the nail on the head when she said Book II was all about Utopia. Sixty pages full of tantalizing information about the glorious island. What more could a girl ask for?
As I was writing my pro/con list on Utopia, I found my cons to far outnumber my pros. Maybe that's because this island seems to be a place where people go to be transformed into a fully functioning part of a very insane society.
Of the few pros I gathered, I really enjoy that the people live in a way that allows everyone to be fed. No one goes hungry, which is a very lovely way of life. I also appreciate that there are "different forms of religion throughout the island" (More 84). Before I got to the religion section of the book, I assumed everyone practiced the same religion because everyone was also treated equally and that just made sense to me. However, I was happy to learn that people could practice a different religion if they wanted to.
Now, on to the bucket-full of cons I came across. THEY HAVE SLAVES. SLAVES. I don't care what crime someone committed, forcing them into slavery is kind of ridiculous. And the fact that some slaves were treated close to citizens and others were treated like the slaves they were just annoyed me more. They have people who live in Utopia more than happy to do the work that needs to be done. Do they really need slaves to get their work done?
I also hate that there is no privacy. The doors to the houses "open easily and swing shut automatically, letting anyone enter who wants to" (42). Oh, that sounds great. Let's have the whole neighborhood walk into my house while I'm sobbing uncontrollably because I detest the island I live on. Just perfect.
Speaking of houses, they change the houses every ten years.Of course, this is to make sure private property does not become a thing (42), but where is the sense of home? I know that Raphael later says that anywhere one goes in Utopia is their home, but I like having the knowledge that no matter what I'm doing, I'm always going to have a stable place to go to when I need it. How can you have that when you're forced to move so often?
I would also like to take a moment to express my disdain that women are taught "lighter crafts" because they are the "weaker sex" (45). While I appreciate not having to do heavy-lifting when men are around, I resent the fact that people think I'm not capable of it at all.* Typical sexist people in a typical sexist era.
As I was writing my pro/con list on Utopia, I found my cons to far outnumber my pros. Maybe that's because this island seems to be a place where people go to be transformed into a fully functioning part of a very insane society.
Of the few pros I gathered, I really enjoy that the people live in a way that allows everyone to be fed. No one goes hungry, which is a very lovely way of life. I also appreciate that there are "different forms of religion throughout the island" (More 84). Before I got to the religion section of the book, I assumed everyone practiced the same religion because everyone was also treated equally and that just made sense to me. However, I was happy to learn that people could practice a different religion if they wanted to.
Now, on to the bucket-full of cons I came across. THEY HAVE SLAVES. SLAVES. I don't care what crime someone committed, forcing them into slavery is kind of ridiculous. And the fact that some slaves were treated close to citizens and others were treated like the slaves they were just annoyed me more. They have people who live in Utopia more than happy to do the work that needs to be done. Do they really need slaves to get their work done?
I also hate that there is no privacy. The doors to the houses "open easily and swing shut automatically, letting anyone enter who wants to" (42). Oh, that sounds great. Let's have the whole neighborhood walk into my house while I'm sobbing uncontrollably because I detest the island I live on. Just perfect.
Speaking of houses, they change the houses every ten years.Of course, this is to make sure private property does not become a thing (42), but where is the sense of home? I know that Raphael later says that anywhere one goes in Utopia is their home, but I like having the knowledge that no matter what I'm doing, I'm always going to have a stable place to go to when I need it. How can you have that when you're forced to move so often?
I would also like to take a moment to express my disdain that women are taught "lighter crafts" because they are the "weaker sex" (45). While I appreciate not having to do heavy-lifting when men are around, I resent the fact that people think I'm not capable of it at all.* Typical sexist people in a typical sexist era.
Overall, I semi-enjoyed reading about Utopia. I started powering-down halfway through, but that might have more to do with going to sleep at one in the morning and waking up at seven. While Utopia definitely has its strong points, I would never want to live there. I enjoy being myself too much to live in a place that tries too hard to make everyone the same.
*I have very poor upper body strength, so men may have to do the heavy-lifting for me on every occasion. However, this does not diminish my point.
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Chlorophyll? More like BOREophyll. (I can't be the only one who loves Billy Madison.)
Am I the only one sincerely missing Middle English right now? Utopia is so dense and it almost bored me to tears. I may be slightly dramatizing my experience with it, but I'm not far off. The footnotes alone made me want to Sharpie out all the little numbers and pretend they didn't exist.
However, I soldiered on and read all of Book I.
Perhaps I disliked it so much because Raphael did not speak of Utopia as much as I thought he would -- the name of the novel is Utopia. He spoke of places around Utopia and how they handled things, but not Utopia itself. Then again, he could have spoken of Utopia and I just didn't pick up on it because I was scratching my head the whole time.
The one part I did find interest in was Raphael's talk on how to handle thieves. I agree completely with him. My favorite quote of his was his explanation on why murder is not a sufficient punishment:
If theft carries the same penalty as murder, the thief will be encouraged to kill the victim whom otherwise he would have only robbed. When the punishment is the same, murder is safer, since one conceals both crimes by killing the witness. (22).
Makes perfect sense to me. Raphael seems like a very practical man (to me, at least), so I'm interested in seeing how he portrays Utopia itself. Hopefully Book II will redeem itself for me.
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Men are wicked and still have happy endings
We were asked if "The Wife of Bath's Tale" was depicts the wickedness of men, and I think it does. However, I think the tale doesn't show women in the best light, either.
The tale starts with a knight raping a woman. I think that is proof enough as to why this tale describes the wickedness of men. Chaucer writes that "By verray force he rafte hire maydenheed" (122, 888). He's a knight for crying out loud! Shouldn't it be easy for him to find a wife that is willing to have sex with him? Does he really have to go out and rape women because he is so overcome by their beauty? He should be locked up. But does that happen? No. King Arthur's wife decides to give him a chance to redeem himself. How one redeems themself from rape is beyond me, but here we are. I think this is a very poor decision. She's a woman; shouldn't she of all people be angered by the knight's actions? Instead of agreeing with King Arthur's decision to behead the knight, she lets him go across the country. This just gives him ample opportunity to rape more women. Which he doesn't, but he very well could have. I think that option should not have been given to him, and that is why I enjoyed the prologue more than the tale itself.
Unfortunately for the lucky rapist knight, all the women he talks to tell him different things they want. Some want money, some want nice clothes, and others want to be pleasured sexually. Is it just me, or does that seem like a good opportunity to have consensual sex instead of raping unsuspected women?
When he finally does find the right answer, he gets to keep his head. But alas! He is forced to marry a hideous woman because she saved his life by telling him what the queen wanted to hear. However, the rapist knight's luck has not run out because the ugly old woman turns into a beautiful young lady. Justice has been served.
Personally, I just do not understand this tale. Sure, the knight tells his wife, "I put me in youre wyse governance" (130, 1231), which what all women want, but is that really enough to pardon him from rape? I probably just can't get behind this tale because times are so different today. However, I think at the very least he should have been stuck with an ugly wife. Why does he get a happy ending when the woman he raped has to live with that forever?
The tale starts with a knight raping a woman. I think that is proof enough as to why this tale describes the wickedness of men. Chaucer writes that "By verray force he rafte hire maydenheed" (122, 888). He's a knight for crying out loud! Shouldn't it be easy for him to find a wife that is willing to have sex with him? Does he really have to go out and rape women because he is so overcome by their beauty? He should be locked up. But does that happen? No. King Arthur's wife decides to give him a chance to redeem himself. How one redeems themself from rape is beyond me, but here we are. I think this is a very poor decision. She's a woman; shouldn't she of all people be angered by the knight's actions? Instead of agreeing with King Arthur's decision to behead the knight, she lets him go across the country. This just gives him ample opportunity to rape more women. Which he doesn't, but he very well could have. I think that option should not have been given to him, and that is why I enjoyed the prologue more than the tale itself.
Unfortunately for the lucky rapist knight, all the women he talks to tell him different things they want. Some want money, some want nice clothes, and others want to be pleasured sexually. Is it just me, or does that seem like a good opportunity to have consensual sex instead of raping unsuspected women?
When he finally does find the right answer, he gets to keep his head. But alas! He is forced to marry a hideous woman because she saved his life by telling him what the queen wanted to hear. However, the rapist knight's luck has not run out because the ugly old woman turns into a beautiful young lady. Justice has been served.
Personally, I just do not understand this tale. Sure, the knight tells his wife, "I put me in youre wyse governance" (130, 1231), which what all women want, but is that really enough to pardon him from rape? I probably just can't get behind this tale because times are so different today. However, I think at the very least he should have been stuck with an ugly wife. Why does he get a happy ending when the woman he raped has to live with that forever?
Thursday, September 26, 2013
The Wife of Awesomeness
I really enjoyed "The Wife of Bath's Prologue" simply because I find her character impressive. I love that she is able to use her sex appeal along with her mind to make men do what she wants them to. She does manipulate them, but I say kudos to her. Usually when someone takes advantage of their looks or mind, they lack the other. However, the Wife of Bath manages to use both to get what she wants. Sure, she uses her body more than her mind, but it is still in use. You have to be clever in order to do and say some of the things she does.
The leverage she has over men is evident when the pardoner says to her, "Telle forth youre tale, spareth for no man/And teche us yonge men of youre praktike" (Chaucer, 106, 186-187). The pardoner knows that the Wife of Bath has a way with men, and he wants to know all of her tricks because he wants to be prepared when he gets married. However, this implies that all women are as manipulative as the Wife of Bath is. During this time period, it is very unlikely that there are a lot of women as domineering as she is.
The way her character is with men is what makes me like her so much. I think she uses her sex appeal as a way to be on a level playing field with the men. At this time, women had very little influence in anything, and I think she uses sex as a way to be in control of something.
Some people in class said that they do not like her character because they have a hard time looking at her from the time period the tale is set. I, however, enjoy her no matter what the time period is. I understand that women have more power in modern society and there are so many ways to get what you want without using your body, but in the end she still has results. If her body is what she has to use it, why not take advantage of it? She was not cheating on her husbands, all of her sexual activity involved the men she married.
I hate that there is a double standard regarding the Wife of Bath in modern society and men in modern society. Most people would look down on her today because of that fact that she has had so many husbands and her current one is twenty years younger than her. However, if her character were a man, things would most likely be different. Men tend to get praised for being with multiple women -- especially if those women are younger than they are.
The only problem I have with her character is that she stayed with Jankin when he beat. I understand that during the time period, men were allowed by law to beat their wives, but her character seems so head-strong that I thought she would find a way to leave him. The one part I did enjoy regarding this was when she hit him back. She explains that she rips his book and makes him fall in the fire, and after he hits her, she "hitte him on the cheke" (Chaucer, 120, 808). Yes, he does hit her, but she fights back and I appreciate that very much.
The leverage she has over men is evident when the pardoner says to her, "Telle forth youre tale, spareth for no man/And teche us yonge men of youre praktike" (Chaucer, 106, 186-187). The pardoner knows that the Wife of Bath has a way with men, and he wants to know all of her tricks because he wants to be prepared when he gets married. However, this implies that all women are as manipulative as the Wife of Bath is. During this time period, it is very unlikely that there are a lot of women as domineering as she is.
The way her character is with men is what makes me like her so much. I think she uses her sex appeal as a way to be on a level playing field with the men. At this time, women had very little influence in anything, and I think she uses sex as a way to be in control of something.
Some people in class said that they do not like her character because they have a hard time looking at her from the time period the tale is set. I, however, enjoy her no matter what the time period is. I understand that women have more power in modern society and there are so many ways to get what you want without using your body, but in the end she still has results. If her body is what she has to use it, why not take advantage of it? She was not cheating on her husbands, all of her sexual activity involved the men she married.
I hate that there is a double standard regarding the Wife of Bath in modern society and men in modern society. Most people would look down on her today because of that fact that she has had so many husbands and her current one is twenty years younger than her. However, if her character were a man, things would most likely be different. Men tend to get praised for being with multiple women -- especially if those women are younger than they are.
The only problem I have with her character is that she stayed with Jankin when he beat. I understand that during the time period, men were allowed by law to beat their wives, but her character seems so head-strong that I thought she would find a way to leave him. The one part I did enjoy regarding this was when she hit him back. She explains that she rips his book and makes him fall in the fire, and after he hits her, she "hitte him on the cheke" (Chaucer, 120, 808). Yes, he does hit her, but she fights back and I appreciate that very much.
Absolon the Creepy Cat Man
People have posted about The Miller's Tale and Nicholas, but I wanted to write about Absolon. Am I the only one who thinks he is kind of crazy?
First of all, he fell in love with Alisoun at first sight. We all know this is in fairy tales, which makes sense because this story is fictional, but it is still crazy. I personally believe he just thinks she is really pretty and he longs to kiss her, or have sex with her...probably both. Chaucer writes that Absolon looked at the carpenter's wife and "thoughte a mery lyf" (77, 3344). How can he picture a happy life with her when he knows absolutely nothing about her but her looks?
The second thing that made me wary of Absolon were these two lines: "I dar wel seyn, if she had been a mous/And he a cat, he wolde hire hente anon" (77, 3346-47). If I'm not mistaken, cats catch mice in order to kill them. Sure, some cats like to catch mice so they can play with them, but that mostly ends with a happy cat playing with a dead mouse. This is the metaphor Chaucer came up with? Two things that do not like each other? Then again, if you think about it, it kind of makes sense. Absolon is the cat and he really wants to be with Alisoun, the mouse. Cats love catching mice. Mice are terrified of cats, and Alisoun wants nothing to do with Absolon. However, this explanation just further proves that Absolon is creepy.
First of all, he fell in love with Alisoun at first sight. We all know this is in fairy tales, which makes sense because this story is fictional, but it is still crazy. I personally believe he just thinks she is really pretty and he longs to kiss her, or have sex with her...probably both. Chaucer writes that Absolon looked at the carpenter's wife and "thoughte a mery lyf" (77, 3344). How can he picture a happy life with her when he knows absolutely nothing about her but her looks?
The second thing that made me wary of Absolon were these two lines: "I dar wel seyn, if she had been a mous/And he a cat, he wolde hire hente anon" (77, 3346-47). If I'm not mistaken, cats catch mice in order to kill them. Sure, some cats like to catch mice so they can play with them, but that mostly ends with a happy cat playing with a dead mouse. This is the metaphor Chaucer came up with? Two things that do not like each other? Then again, if you think about it, it kind of makes sense. Absolon is the cat and he really wants to be with Alisoun, the mouse. Cats love catching mice. Mice are terrified of cats, and Alisoun wants nothing to do with Absolon. However, this explanation just further proves that Absolon is creepy.
I think that is an accurate depiction of what the cat version of Absolon would look like.
The third and final thing that made me question Absolon's sanity is when he burns Nicholas' butt. HE BURNS HIS ASS. Can we all take a moment to appreciate how much that would hurt? Yes, I know Alisoun tricked him into kissing "hir naked ers/Ful savourly" (85, 3734-35), but did he really have to resort to burning Nicholas' butt? Could he not just realize that Alisoun does not like him and move on? Or perhaps he could have punched Nicholas in the face. That would be preferable to burning him. I bet Nicholas is going to have fun sitting down for a while. Oh, Absolon. you crazy cat man, you.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
He may not have money, but he's got the goods.
My favorite character we discussed in class yesterday was the "povre PERSOUN" (478). Although the man is described as being poor, I think he lives a very rich life.
I personally believe that some things are more important than money, and the man depicted in lines 477-528 possess several qualities that outweigh his lack of funds. Chaucer describes him as a "lerned man, a clerk" (480). He's a smart man, which implies that he knows how to live a comfortable life even though he does not have a lot of money. He is able to live in a way that coincides with his income.
Not only does he live a comfortable life, he lives a life he loves. He does not let his financial standing determine his outlook on the world. Chaucer writes, "Wyd was his parisshe, and houses fer asonder/But he ne lafte nat, for reyn ne thonder/in siknes nor in meschief, to vyste" (491-493). It did not matter if the weather was unbearable or if he was sick, he still went to visit everyone in his parish. This man believes that it is a shame to have a corrupt or lazy "shepard" and people who are inherently good. If a priest does not do his job correctly, it does not matter how the people in the parish behave. It is the job of the priest to be a good "leader" and make sure the people of his parish are happy and healthy and not in need of anything. The priest Chaucer writes about is the epitome of this.
It is easy for the reader to accept this as a fact because Chaucer goes on to write, "A bettre preest I trowe that nowher noon is" (524). The priest described in these lines is the best priest known to the narrator. He is what other priests should aspire to be like.
I personally believe that some things are more important than money, and the man depicted in lines 477-528 possess several qualities that outweigh his lack of funds. Chaucer describes him as a "lerned man, a clerk" (480). He's a smart man, which implies that he knows how to live a comfortable life even though he does not have a lot of money. He is able to live in a way that coincides with his income.
Not only does he live a comfortable life, he lives a life he loves. He does not let his financial standing determine his outlook on the world. Chaucer writes, "Wyd was his parisshe, and houses fer asonder/But he ne lafte nat, for reyn ne thonder/in siknes nor in meschief, to vyste" (491-493). It did not matter if the weather was unbearable or if he was sick, he still went to visit everyone in his parish. This man believes that it is a shame to have a corrupt or lazy "shepard" and people who are inherently good. If a priest does not do his job correctly, it does not matter how the people in the parish behave. It is the job of the priest to be a good "leader" and make sure the people of his parish are happy and healthy and not in need of anything. The priest Chaucer writes about is the epitome of this.
It is easy for the reader to accept this as a fact because Chaucer goes on to write, "A bettre preest I trowe that nowher noon is" (524). The priest described in these lines is the best priest known to the narrator. He is what other priests should aspire to be like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)