Enjoyable Essay

I’ve been going over possible thesis for a paper. I like the novel and I admit I want to enjoy writing about it in an essay as I do when blogging about it, because writing an essay stresses me sickly and usually I DON’T enjoy it. I expect to change that. ;)

- Pride and Prejudice villain: Miss Bingley
- Pride and Prejudice villain: Mr. Wickham
- Romantic Quotes
- It’s All About the Looks, Beauty in Pride and Prejudice
- Pride According to Jane Austen
- The Letters
- Marriage According to Jane Austen

That’s it, for now.

Mr. Wickham

Who the hell is he?

His first appearance excited me, I must confess, first in the book and later in the movie. I had not passed page 150 or part 7 in the YouTube videos of the movie. “His appearance was greatly in his favour; he had all the best part of beauty, a fine countenance, a good figure, and very pleasing address.” (pg. 54) I actually thought this guy could be the one for Elizabeth, to whom I had favoritism already of course. The way he flirted with Lizzy, the fact that he was very handsome and a soldier made him attractive. In the movie he appears as the only handsome character, the rest are ugly (including Darcy who is supposed to be the prettiest). The actor Rupert Friend is hot I must say. It is all about the looks once again. “Mr. Wickham was the happy man towards whom almost all female eyes was turned, and Elizabeth was the happy woman by which he finally seated himself; (…)” (pg. 57). I fell, like Elizabeth did and the rest of the town did into his good looks and agreeability.

More so when he reinforces the negative reputation that Mr. Darcy already has we (the novel’s characters and me) accept him most pleasantly. That’s natural. When you are meeting someone, usually the first conversations are about things you have in common, including the people you know and your opinion about them. When the opinions match you tend to like the person more, and the fondness is stronger when the opinion of a common known person is negative, don’t know why. This happened to Elizabeth and Mr. Wickham. BUT! Wickham, to our ignorance, was playing the cards carefully to hide his own dishonest character.

We find this out in a letter (pg. 147) from Mr. Darcy to Elizabeth that not only twists our image of him (to the point of loving him) but reveals Mr. Wickham true essence supported with prove. Not only Wickham’s false accusations to Mr. Darcy, but that he was a gambler, a fortune-hunter and had deceptive ways. The letters convinces us.

By then I hate Mr. Wickham because I felt cheated for feeling the excitement I felt when I met him, following exactly the feelings that Jane Austen wanted to arise in me. And the scandal is not done when he runs away with Lydia, the young Bennet sister, only sixteen years old and they are not even married. Lydia, not amazingly pretty nor intelligent, silly and absurdly immature and vain that cannot provide him with any of the fortune he searches for, what the hell is he doing? Who the hell he is? What is Mr. Wickham’s true essence? What are his true intentions? I feel betrayed by this character.

Beautiful Words

My reading was behind and I got home to read like a maniac and be able to catch up with the rest of the class. My father came in and asked me about the book. After telling him how stressed I was and how much I had to read I told him how difficult it is to perfectly understand Jane Austen’s writing and to prove my point and started reading out loud to him. To my surprise he said “How beautiful it sounds! I can’t keep up with what you are saying but it definitely sounds beautiful.” And I realized that it actually did.

Jane Austen’s words are beautiful. Leaving aside what the story is about and the romance’s and love’s beauty, the mare words are beautiful.

“The sanguine hope of good, however, which the benevolence of her heart suggested, had not yet deserted her(…)” (pg. 212)

Forget the meaning of what is being told, even though it is gorgeous too. Read each word out loud. Sanguine - sang-gwin and benevolence - buh-nev-uh-luh ns are two words that stand out to me. Both because of their pronunciation, and because I doubted their definition. If pronounced with British accent, like it’s meant to be, it sounds pleasant to the ears. The looks of the words are also beautiful, benevolence with four es in four syllables and sanguine with the ui. Their definitions are pleasant as well: Sanguine means cheerfully optimistic, hopeful and benevolence means an act of kindness, or the desire to do good to others. Hope, good and heart are also nice sounded words and have pretty definitions. And this is just a random half sentence I picked up! The structure of the sentence is beautifully done too. The sentence could be structured like this:

“The benevolence of her heart suggested her not to desert the sanguine hope of good (…)”

But it would not sound, or look as good. I appreciated then, thanks to my father’s comment, Austen’s effort and success at producing “her own darling child”.

Gatsby Vs. Pride and Prejudice

I cannot help but to connect one novel with another. As I did after reading The Road and blogging about it I am doing with Pride And Prejudice. F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel The Great Gatsby has jumped to my mind more than once in my reading. The big parties, the fancy house, the wealth importance, the social status, the society characteristics and the unending desire for material things are some of the themes that Fitzgerald’s and Austen’s novels share.

Gatsby’s character compares with Mr. Darcy’s. They are both wealthy, yet they have no particular drive and passion for their wealth. This could be misunderstood with Gatsby, he seems to love his wealth but he actually is indifferent towards it, he continuously tries to fill his self hollowness with money and fails. Mr. Darcy’s pride does not involve him being proud of his money, instead he is humble. They both seem to be lonely and are searching, in their particular ways, for a female companion. Apart from the similar themes stated above, both novels share the search for an emotional companion. Both characters happen to have one whose love is not easy to be corresponded and the relationship seems to be impossible to happen: Gatsby with Daisy and Mr. Darcy with Elizabeth.

The balls in Pride and Prejudice and the big parties in Pride and Prejudice are both an excuse to rank each member in the society in a social status. Not only in terms of their wealth, but their relationship status (like Facebook), accomplishments, dance skills, behavior, countenance, and based on come up with a detailed analysis of each person attending. Fitzgerald’s opinion of society differs to Austen’s opinion. Fitzgerald evidently criticizes it while Austen seems to like it. Fitzgerald finds the social ranks and superficial mentality of the time ridiculous. Austen seems to find a reason for it, and maybe she does not agree with all of what characterizes XVIII century society she does not find it ridiculous. Her biography influences in her point of view. Her parents were members of “substantial gentry families.”

I hope that among the similarities of both novels, Gatsby’s end differs to Darcy’s. And I hope Darcy’s love is not only corresponded (because I know it is) but successful.

Now What?

I’m afraid I reached the climax of the novel. I know my blogs have not been about the literary devices that Austen uses, or irony, or satire or analysis of the plot but rather my female teen opinion of what literally is going on. But I can’t handle the need to write about it. When everything seemed to be calm and monotonous and even boring BOOM Austen decides to shake my world with Mr. Darcy’s confession.

“In vain have I struggled. It will not do. My feelings will not be repressed. You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you.” (142)

I swear there is no way for anyone to not feel anything when reading this. I know girls obviously get much more excited, scream, laugh, cover their mouth with their hand, open their eyes, sigh among other reactions, but boys… I am certain they feel something too. These four sentences are the most important sentences in the whole novel. After 142 pages of a hernia waiting for him to spit it out, he finally does and so unpredictable that I feel as dumbfounded as Elizabeth. I never expected Mr. Darcy to confess his feelings that way. Notice that the first three sentences are incredibly short in comparison to the long and elaborated previous ones of his unique dialogue. He is nervous and indeed, struggling to make words come out of his mouth. He finally manages to do so, childish. The length and conciseness of the sentences show how desperate he was that he lacks the patience to tell her his feelings slowly and romantically. That’s why he protagonists the novel, very different to any other male character and to the standard gentleman of the time.

The story will change its course drastically, what we had been wishing for happened and now what? Elizabeth rejects him but then what? She cant now move on like nothing happened, she is a woman and her heart was shaken violently by a man she believes to hate. The story can’t go on now talking about Jane’s beauty or Mary’s piano performances or Mrs. And Mr. Collins or the irritating excellency of Lady Catherine or the books Elizabeth reads. Nah ah. I want some romance!

Prides Attract Each Other

There is a dialogue between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth that I enjoyed because both prides are evident. Elizabeth is about to play the piano and Mr. Darcy feels the need to make her nervous. Previously he had been talking to Lady Catherine about his sister’s amazing skill playing the piano so when Elizabeth is about to play he obviously will pay attention to compare her playing with the praised one of his sister.

If I were Elizabeth my hands would have sweated, my heart pounded and I would simply paralyzed and said “could I please be excused I feel suddenly very ill and I’m afraid I am not in my best condition to play” and leave. Mr. Darcy obviously spark some particular emotions in Elizabeth that even though she wants to hide and deny but fails. Yet we know Elizabeth is like no other so my reaction to Mr. Darcy’s presence is not an option for her, instead she faces it right away: “‘You mean to frighten me, Mr. Darcy, by coming all this state to hear me? But I will not be alarmed, though your sister does play so well. There is a stubbornness about me that never can bear to be frightened at the will of others. My courage always rises with every attempt to intimidate me.’” (pg.131)She first makes Mr. Darcy feel attacked and tries to intimidate him switching his first intentions and confusing him. She then makes it clear that for her his presence makes no difference, that his trial to intimidate her makes her even play better. She mentions stubbornness, this characteristic had not been mentioned before. I see stubbornness very much linked to pride. When pride is so abundant that it becomes almost like arrogance, you are likely stubborn as well because you believes that you earns the right to do things your own way which is the best way possible, no suggestions are allowed. I was not surprised that Elizabeth considers herself a stubborn person, I considered her one before when she rejected Mr. Collins and when she walked to Mr. Bingley’s house and other occasions.

Mr. Darcy, as a proud man as well wont let Elizabeth make him look bad so he replies as strongly, “I shall not say that you are mistaken, because you could not really believe me to entertain any design of alarming you; and I have had the pleasure of your acquaintance long enough to know that you find great enjoyment in occasionally professing opinions which in fact are not your own.” (pg. 131) He denies that he actually is trying to intimidate her, making then her look bad for feeling so important as to be his target. And then he accuses her of not speaking her own thoughts but others. He twisted her statements around yet neither won the discussion, but both made their point which actually means that they are very aware of each other’s movements and intentions and they like it.

And I like it too. They flirt so elegantly and subtle that it’s hard to catch it but impossible to miss. I can’t wait for Jane Austen to stop my impatience and make one of them drop their pride and kiss the other.

See It

Mr. Bingley

What a lie of a man. I never expected him to be so weak of character to let his sisters make a choice for him. My first impression of him was that of a handsome man, not so tall, not so short, outgoing and pleasant to be around but also educated and smart. Evidently a wealthy man too, that earned his own money and seems to deserve it respectably. That’s his appearance, to me and to most of the other characters. I never thought of him as a stupid man until he goes away to London and Caroline Bingley sends a letter. Then I doubt about his true self.

In the film Pride And Prejudice 2005 I was surprised to see Mr. Bingley as a dumb, jumpy, hollow man. Red haired, this feature usually links to dull men and rather short which takes away a lot of respect. Every time he talks in the film he sounds childish. Seeing him as that character that the movie portrays it surprises me less to find out that Mr. Bingley lacks the determination and authority to command his own life and make his own decisions based on his emotions and not his sister’s.

Easily can you change a person’s image due to their physical appearance. Austen describes very well the characters but the description is not complete unless you see it.

Editing Austen

Mr. Collins gets on my nerves. Jane Austen does a fantastic job to make a character inspire a feeling in the reader. Ever since he is mentioned for the first time he annoys me. He is introduced to the story as a bother and inconvenience and even a target of joke for Elizabeth and Mr. Bennet. He is the perfect example of someone who gets tangled up in irrelevant conversations and useless wordiness. He reminded me of Writer’s Workshop on wordiness and how to avoid it and conciseness. I constantly edited Mr. Collins’ lines cutting out half of them or even leaving him quiet.

Here is an example:

“ ‘I am not now to learn, that it is usual with young ladies to reject the address of the man whom they secretly mean to accept, when he first applies for their favour; and that sometimes the refusal is repeated a second or even third time. I am therefore by no means discouraged by what you have said, and shall hope to lead you to the altar ere long.’ ” (pg. 81)

And a revised version of my own:

“I know young ladies initially reject a proposal from a man even three times before accepting, so don’t worry about me because I keep my hopes that we will marry.”

Basically the same thing is said. I am well aware that Austen’s merit lays in the vocabulary she uses and the way she writes. Obviously her version is more beautiful and fits the time period and I know it should be praised that way, but I can’t help noticing the wordiness and an uncontrollable desire to cut it down. Yet it only bugs me with Mr. Collins, I love the wordiness in Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth. In that Chapter Nineteen when he refuses to accept Elizabeth’s rejection I felt the urge to slap him in the face. Elizabeth’s response pleased me enormously. This is an authentic chick flick. Similar emotions I felt while reading the Twilight Saga and now that I am watching the movie, I feel equally excited.

Definitions

I have to make an effort to understand what is going on. The vocabulary is ostentatious and the dialogue is full of sarcasm, irony and some intentions behind of what is being said that close attention is required. Certainly is the opposite to The Road were every word was needed and not one could be for spare. Jane Austen decorates her writing and descriptions so much that I have felt like if I know the characters and their tone of voice and way they move.

Despite that I understand everything, and even bond with the characters, there are some words that I lack in my knowledge due to the fact that English is my second language and the English I speak is two hundred years younger.

Patronage: -noun “the financial support or business provided to a store, hotel, or the like, by customers, clients, or paying guests.”
Lady Catherine de Bourgh’s help to Mr. Collins.

Rectory of this parish..: The leadership, in charge or, the local church.

Phaeton: -noun “ Any of various light, four-wheeled carriages, with or without a top, having one or two seats facing forward, used in the 19th century.”
Referring to Lady Catherine’s wealth and possessions.

Countenance: -noun “appearance, esp. the look or expression of the face: a sad countenance. “
Jane Austen’s part of almost everybody’s description.

Incumbent: -adjective “obligatory (often fol. by on or upon ): a duty incumbent upon me.”
I erroneously thought it meant to intrude like the Spanish word “incumbe”.

Bequeathed: -verb “to hand down; pass on.”
Mr. Wickham’s story about “late Mr. Darcy” handing him his gift that later Mr. Darcy denies him.

Veracity: -noun “habitual observance of truth in speech or statement; truthfulness: He was not noted for his veracity.”
Elizabeth’s thought about Mr. Wickham.

Some connotations of the words vary because of the time period and the way they are used by Jane Austen, but I get a pretty good idea what they mean and in context I understand better their true meaning.

I Was Right

My evidence to my suspicion:

“He began to feel the danger of paying Elizabeth too much attention” (pg.43)

“Miss Bingley was then sorry that she had proposed the delay, for her jealousy and dislike of one sister much exceeded her affection for the other.” (pg. 44)

“She attracted him more that he liked-and Miss Bingley was uncivil to her, and more teasing than usual to himself” (pg. 44)

I like how Jane Austen thinks.

Some Suspicions

I have some suspicions about some feelings and relationships in the novel: Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy are attracted to each other, but they are not aware of it yet and Miss Bingley feels strongly attracted to Mr. Darcy as well. Elizabeth was warned not to fall, or feel any attraction of any kind for Mr. Darcy because he is the most arrogant and “disagreeable” man of all, and obviously not worthy of her. But we know since page one that Elizabeth is not like the others and has a mind of her own so probably she won’t follow entirely what her mother tells her. Miss Bingley knows Mr. Darcy before Elizabeth and probably has been with him a lot because he is her brother’s friend. I don’t know Mrs. Bingley age but I guess she is about Elizabeth’s or younger because she has shown some immature behavior. Therefore is common that the younger sister like the older bother’s friend, more so if this friend is handsome and doe not pay attention to her. Mr. Darcy on the other hand, denies himself that he actually feels attracted to Elizabeth. But slowly he has been captive by Elizabeth’s strong personality and her rejection.


Doing something that you know are not supposed to is always a little more exciting. Mrs. Bennet said “But I can assure you, that Lizzy does not lose much by not suiting his fancy; for he is a most disagreeable, horrid man, not at all worth pleasing.” (pg. 9) she has a warning. Elizabeth herself doesn’t like the man either, “to her he was only the man who made himself agreeable nowhere, and who had not thought her handsome enough to dance with.” (pg.16) But she was able to change his view of her the next time they met and left him dazzled. At that same scene I started to suspect that Miss Bingley felt an attraction to Mr. Darcy. She tries to please him and her conversations and remarks. Every time she talks near him, she does it to be heard by him and agreed by him more than to share her own authentic thoughts. As to be expected, she fails, “He listened to her with perfect indifference…” (pg. 20) This reaction often conquests a woman’s heart. Indifference is the best technique to make someone fall in love. Jane Austen is aware of that because she is a women, and despite the fact that times have changed, indifference then and indifference now make you fall in love. Mr. Darcy is a victim of Elizabeth’s indifference and Miss Bingley is a victim of Mr. Darcy’s indifference. Elizabeth’s behavior with Mr. Darcy is voluntarily, she does not want to feel any attraction to such an arrogant man, and she acts that way to deny herself the fact that she actually has an interest in him. Mr. Darcy’s behavior is not on purpose, he actually doesn’t care about Miss Bingley, he finds her annoying because her desperate need to have his attention is irritating.

If my suspicions are right I will blog about it. :)

Research

Before opening the book I made some research.

Originally, the book was called First Impressions, written between 1796 and 1797, it was believed to be a collection of letters exchanged between the characters, not a novel. This may explain the title: Pride And Prejudice.

Pride : n. “Arrogant or disdainful conduct or treatment; haughtiness.
An excessively high opinion of oneself; conceit.”

Prejudice: n. n adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
A preconceived preference or idea.”

Both words have a negative connotation and a similar denotation, judgment. When you read someone’s letter to note the person’s tone and what he means to say, is challenging. Therefore you can easily fall in judgment of that person unreasonably because you miss the information that the tone of a voice gives you. I guess that’s why there are so many misunderstanding through BBM. Yet the book as we know it is written as a narrative, it’s different.

This version, published in 1813 attributes Jane Austen as her best and most popular novel that describes through a romantic story the classy rural life of the time. The title represents the kind of uneasy relationship that the two main characters carry, Elizabeth and Darcy. This acknowledgement surprised me, I find myself believing that most of today’s relationships have a big deal of pride and prejudice. Not only love relationships, but friendship, family and at school or work.

Not bad for a first glimpse at the next novel that will require a lot or time and response writing.

A Bit Of Humour

Death is always a matter of debate. Its psychologically impossible, I think, to accept the fact that one day we are leaving earth and never come back, or that one day someone we know, or love, is leaving us forever. The only thing that stays is the memory. There are books about deaths, movies, songs. It is like love, unexplainable but inevitable. Act V of Hamlet is mainly about death. All characters die. Ironically. It even starts with two gravediggers debating about the death of Ophelia and the role and importance of a gravedigger. I really liked that scene, it is meant to be funny and it actually is, but in between the jokes and gossip of these two gravediggers there is truth.

“Will you ha' the truth on ’t? If this had not been a gentlewoman, she should have been buried out o' Christian burial.” (Act V, scene 1, line 21-23) The social class was an issue then. The difference before God because of how much money one has. A “gentlewomen” is one with money and status, part of the noble people. The ones that live in a castle. If she was a common women she would not have received a Christian burial because suicide is something to be ashamed of, it is a disrespect of live, a sin for God. Here the issue of suicidal comes up again. Hamlet had before stated it in the soliloquy “to be or not to be” and he knows that it is not honorable to die committing suicide, no matter how eager he was to take his own life because of misery. But since she is a “gentlewomen” the gravediggers know that she will have a Christian burial anyhow.

Some of Hamlet’s lines reminded me of the Jorge Luis Borge’s sonnet El Olvido Que Seremos “Ya somos el olvido que seremos. El polvo elemental que nos ignora” starts like that. “we are already the forgotten we will be. The elemental dust that ignores us.” He basically states that there is no way to escape being forgotten or die and become dust. Hamlet surprises with this fact when he holds Yorick’s skull. That even Alexander The Great, after all his conquers and achievements, he becomes a dirty rotten stinky skeleton. That no matter how much make up a women wears, a skull underground is her destiny. I agree with Hamlet but I do not want to see life that way. If I do I will end up locked up in my room crying my eyes out and asking myself “to be or not to be?” day and night until I jump off the window. I prefer the gravedigger’s humor and simple way of living. “I like thy wit well, in good faith” (Act V, scene 1, line 45)

"Disease"

See what you want to see.

Neurosis:

[noo-roh-sis, nyoo-]
–noun, plural

“A class of functional mental disorders involving distress but neither delusions nor hallucinations, whereby behavior is not outside socially acceptable norms.”

Never Know For Sure

Before basing my interpretation of Hamlet’s character on V. The Material And Sources Of Dreams (continued) and Hamlet and His Problems, I stopped to remember my own, uninfluenced interpretation. Hamlet is a obvious troubled coward man, whose father’s death affected him profoundly. He experiences the re marriage of his mother and this repulses him, because the new kind is his uncle. He witnesses the appearance of his dead father as a ghost and it tells him to revenge, and ever since Hamlet looks for a way to ease his grief and disappointment through actions that he seems unable to fulfill. It angers him is the censorship he is put up to of his desperate disagreement with his mother’s marriage and his father’s murder. But he is limited to act because of his lack of bravery and too much hesitation.

Turns out I’m not so far off. Dr. Derwey agrees with me, “Hamlet represents the type of man whose active energy is paralyzed by excessive intellectual activity (…)” (V. The Material And Sources Of Dreams (continued)) this is a disease of upper class people caused by stress, diagnosed as neurasthenia. He is indeed “paralyzed", this can be seen in David Tennat’s performance of the famous “to be or not to be” where he practically doesn’t move while reciting the soliloquy. His mind is so full of a mixture of emotions, thoughts and feelings that he cannot move, less so act. It reminds me of a depressed person, who is numb and whose eyes are unfocused. Without a doubt Hamlet is a mentally ill character. T.S Elliot suggests something similar, “It is thus a feeling which he cannot understand; he cannot objectify it, and it therefore remains to poison life and obstruct action.” Hamlet does not understand himself. There is an excess of thoughts and hesitation. But then arouses the question why Hamlet acted on other persons and doesn’t really get to the real vengeance he is looking for?

Dr. Derwey interprets, according to Freud and psychoanalysis that Claudius is what Hamlet always wanted to be and he sees himself reflected on him and therefore inhibiting him to take action against him, as he is supposed to. Based on the ancient text Oedipus Rex, the male child will in most cases have a desire for the mother since she is his first sexual attraction. And for the father the male child feels a certain impulse of hatred because he threatens the child. Therefore, Dr. Derwey says that Claudius is “the man who shows him in realization the repressed desires of his own childhood.” (V. The Material And Sources Of Dreams) This is interesting. Duuh there are other interpretations, but this is accurate, according to Freud. T.S Elliot argues that Hamlet’s “madness” is feigned. For Shakespeare it was so. Hamlet’s levity, tricks and behavior are faked to trap any suspicion. But as Dr. Derwey proved with Freud and Professor Stoll of the University of Minnesota states, today we can interpret Hamlet’s characters in ways that Shakespeare would have never imagined thanks to the psychological discoveries. “We should have to understand things which Shakespeare did not understand himself.” As T.S Eliot closes his essay. There is no wrong interpretation. Maybe I’m wrong thinking that Hamlet lacks bravery, according to T.S Eliot he could surplus it enough to feign his madness. We may never know for sure.

Relief Or Luxury

Guilt is one of the most annoying feelings. It is a mixture of regret for what you have done, anger at yourself because you did it, confusion because you don’t know why you did it and impotence because there is nothing you can do to undo it.
Claudius realizes after the play that indeed he is guilty of a horrible crime. He was not so aware of it because he was enjoying the fruits of his scheme. Nobility, a wife, a throne, power, luxury. Yet he cannot escape the feeling that will, and does, eventually overwhelm him.
“My fault is past. But, O, what form of prayer
Can serve my turn? 'Forgive me my foul murder'? “
What is done is done. He cannot change his present because his crime is in the past. Claudius wants to be forgiven, partly because if he is forgiven by the “heavens” then he won’t be punished. And partly to release the feeling of guilt that crushes him. He does not know what he can do to overcome his murder. He mocks at himself asking God simply for forgiveness. Using quotations to repeat his own words. He calls his crime “foul” because he knows that he will eventually be revealed, he suspects already.

He is now in a quandary, “I stand in pause” because he does not want no give up the previledges of becoming king, but he knows that keep on living with the guilt will become unbearable. Patrick Steward performs this perfectly. He does not move while speaking, only to kneel at the end of the soliloquy. There is a bit of evil in his expression, and it changes back and forth to misery but also arrogance because of his achievements. “May one be pardoned and retain th' offense?” Claudius’s greed is expressed in the faint smile that Steward does. He wont give up his regards. He wants to find a way to be forgiven without a punishment nor loosing “my crown” and “my queen”. And again! Like Hamlet, Claudius is afraid! Of death. Being judged, as he knows he should be judged and punished, in heaven, or better said, hell. Aware he is that, against his will, some kind of action he has to take for his sin: “Bow, stubborn knees,”. And aware as well of his own character and that it will not be easy for him because he is stubborn and greedy. What will Claudius do?

Beauty

Above Hamlet's obvious disturbance, his words are right. Harshly he says it ‘cause he’s hurt, but true:

“Ay, truly; for the power of beauty will sooner
transform honesty from what it is to a bawd than the
force of honesty can translate beauty into his
likeness: this was sometime a paradox, but now the
time gives it proof. I did love you once.”

Beauty is a threat. Very easily women can be victims of it and become whores, as Hamlet suggests. No matter how honest and good this woman is. Beauty is ironic, it should be synonym of goodness, but it is not! This makes it a paradox, self-contradictory. A person that is beautiful inside means that her heart is pure, with good intentions and incapable of evil. But this beauty outside isn’t. Hamlet says that beauty overpowers honesty. It’s more appealing, duuh. So pretty women are sinful! Even though this should not be a generalization, Hamlet is doing so ordering Ophelia to go to a nunnery, and not to sin because her condition leads her to do so. And Hamlet is already accusing Ophelia of sin, mostly because he is upset for the returning of his “remembrances," and to hide this obvious feeling: “I did love you once”. Once, but not anymore. Buhu, the rest of us know the lie, otherwise he would not have cared that she gave him the gifts back, right? Poor Hamlet, cheating himself with his own true feelings.

Hesitating

Yes, the famous known soliloquy by Hamlet “to be or not to be”. I have asked myself ever since we started reading Hamlet, why is this so famous? And I came to the conclusion that everybody has once asked themselves this question. Every human being has felt, or will feel, the way Hamlet feels in this scene, in different intensities of curse. Yet, Shakespeare is the only one to write it down. Not only write it down but magnified it almost like celebrating this hesitation of human’s minds when it is in trouble.

David Tennant is in profound desperation and he seems as if he had given up any kind of hope. He leans on the wall like in need of a support because his body (as his mind) cannot take it anymore. He hesitates while speaking, exactly what Hamlet is doing in the soliloquy, vacillating. What more accurate interpretation than hesitation every time a word is pronounced? He takes 11 seconds to go from “To be, or not to be: that is the question:” to “Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer”. He is debating between life or death. If one is in such situation, it may take more than 11 seconds to decide. Do I want to die and end my suffering or keep on living in misery? He is in misery, that’s a fact. If you are happy and satisfied with your life you would probably not ask yourself the question, it’s redundant. What a coward! It embarrasses him his fear and indecisiveness, his lack of braveness to embrace suffering. He is certain that it is not noble to be afraid, but he asks himself as an excuse to justify his thoughts and emotions.

Tennant closes his eyes, like trying to find the answers within him. He is frowning, his expression is of anguish, he searching for a way out to this entanglement that he finds himself into. But fails. And opens his eyes (1:21) to find the same room, the same self, which is not dreaming as he might wish to (it is in this exact lines that he opens his eyes, “coincidently”):
“To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come”
But awake. He’s afraid as well. Hamlet is afraid. Afraid of living, and afraid of dying. He is scared that death, like sleeping, can bring nightmares, and his living misery will continue on in death. This “rub”, this mischance, prevents him from committing suicide.

Thankyou Shakespeare

Men I’m amazed. What a brilliant idea. Agnes is a hero. I think about Shakespeare in his grave, he would have never imagined that his plays would do what they do today, and will keep on doing for many years to come. Shakespeare might have known that his plays were a big deal and that many people would be identified with the characters’ feelings and actions, but I don’t think he would know that his plays would change the life of a criminal. And I think about art, art it its many forms and interpretations and I have come to the conclusion that art might be a savior or a killer. A killer because it might make people crazy, many bohemians kill themselves because they are overwhelmed and can’t deal with so much emotion. In this case it is a savior. For this guy that played Leartes, this role changed his life. He realized he could be so much better and he wants to be a better man because found out that if he committed to something he could do it. He said that criminals were cowards, that he had been a coward and he doesn’t want to be one again, thanks to Shakespeare.
And the guy that plays Claudius and regretted the murder of his brother, and he himself regretted his crimes could let go his most underground feelings thanks to his role. And the one that played the ghost of Hamlet’s father that felt that his victim, the man whose life he had taken was talking through him while playing the role, he was able to communicate with him and let go of his hard feelings, thanks to the ghost.

I have acted, I don’t consider myself an actor but I do like acting and I have done many productions and enjoyed every minute of them. The feeling is the key. It is very easy to fall into reciting line without even knowing what you are saying. It even happens to me while reading Hamlet and I have to stop and say “wait, what? Let’s go back”. If you don’t feel or understand what your character is saying you might better give up the acting. I guess there is no better way to act an emotion than have had the emotion yourself. I would love to see the prisoners acting Hamlet. I think that everybody has felt a little Hamlet in their lives, and if they haven’t, they will. I know it is possible to really cry while acting, or burst out laughing, genuinely, and feel anger or sadness or joy. I believe in these criminals. I found myself smiling listening to this episode, I was touched. We are supposed to hate criminals, but I really felt like hugging them. What if reading Hamlet I find the answer to my doubts and easy troubles (compared to the criminal’s), and I feel as much or close to what this play should make you feel. Then I would have to thank Shakespeare, as these criminals thank ever since they discovered him. Also thank Agnes for taking into action the project that has shaped their life in a better way that they have been shaping it. The feeling is the thing, wherein you’ll catch the essence of your being.

Worth A Peak

Hamlet on Broadway
Jude Law makes the play much more interesting and profound. He takes Shakespeare to another level ;)

Interpretations

Two different actors, two different scenes, two different productions. Same play. David Tennant’s scene is much more as a play and less as a movie like Kenneth Branagh’s. He moves on the stage a lot and seems desperate. He even seems to be loosing his mind, and it is not for less because the very piece of Hamlet’s soliloquy that he is performing (Act 2, Scene 2.) the character is confused and feeling sorry for himself. He feels sorry for himself all throughout the play actually. And I guess this is why Hamlet is so famous, this pity of oneself is very common, but only Shakespeare was able to write it down. I felt sorry for the actor acting this scene. Desperate and annoyed. The fact that I felt this makes him successful I guess, as an actor. The whole point is to be able to transmit the feeling that the character, through bare words, is transmitting to the reader. I know it is the acting and the lines he is saying that is important when performing, but the props, the scenery and costume plays a key role as well. David Tennant’s clothes are modern and chilled. He is in jeans, bare foot, and a t-shirt with a skeleton printed on it (which btw is very symbolic) and nothing more. He is in a room quite empty with antique furniture, contradicting his clothes. But well, it is a hundred year old play, the language and the furniture are old, the actor is young as well as his clothes.

In Kenneth Branagh’s version he is not so much desperate, nor loosing his mind, he is angry. Furious. And disappointed, he is speaks at a slower pace and tastes the words deeply. As if feeding the anger he is feeling and even bursts out into a louder voice to free it. He moves much slower than Tennant. In this scene he is indeed disappointed with what had happened,. His father’s death and his mother’s marriage to his uncle. The scenery is more elaborate in this scene, a room filled with furniture, mirrors, as a fancy palace that it is. Hamlet is dressed in an elegant black suit that fits very much his emotion. It is not modern at all. I mean, I won’t find anyone dressed like that walking in the street today, nor in a funeral, nor in a cocktail. It is old stylish, matching Shakespeare’s times. Of curse they are in two different facades of Hamlet, and feelings of him, but their interpretations are accurate.

I seem to be getting a clearer idea of who Hamlet is, or isn’t. I want to get to know him better, like if he were a friend of a friend whom I’ve seen in pictures and heard a lot about but have not yet gotten the pleasure, or disgrace to meet. I feel closer to Hamlet after watching these two videos regardless the difference in interpretations.

First Taste Of Hamlet

Act I Scene III

Blood
Nature
Loves
Fear
Heart
Danger
Judgment
Leave

Farewell

Krap! I'm Old.

I saw the play, and then read the play. I understood it much better, I was able to picture the words while reading and to sense the emotions that are meant to written in italics. It is a short play, almost just one scene, and in that one scene, a whole life is portrayed.

The first line of a play, of a book, of a movie, is, obviously, very important. Krapp’s Last Tape has an interesting first line:

“A late evening in the future”

In italics, which means that it is a description of the scenery or the plot where and when the scene is taking place. Notice that there a three words that imply the end, “late” is not on time, is after a certain time. When you are late for an appointment you are some minutes or hours after the desired time. When you are late in age is that you no longer are young, or is past the desired age. Late in a day, is near the end of the day, usually at night when the day is over and a new day is coming. Evening is the time of the day closer to the end. It is the time before the night that is the closure. The evening happens after the sun has gone down, it is dark, like the stage where Krapp is. And since it is a “late evening” it is darker. There is a second part to this late evening, it is in the future. This is the interesting part. How can you do a play and expect to perform it in the future? It might mean that some things have not happened yet because the future is a skip of time to move forward in history. Or it is a projection of what the day of his sixty-ninth birthday will be like. Based on the tapes and experiences and evolution he has had in his life, that are manifested on the tapes. This first sentence is ironic, it is the beginning of a play, but it entails an after, an end.

And with this pre disposition I keep on reading. I encounter that, as I had said in my previous blog, this Krapp is disturbed, and more so reading it because it talks more of some of his obsessive behaviors, there are three bananas instead of one, and the keys and obviously the expressions that the actor should be acting that might not be so accurate since it is hard to act an emotion, its subjective. He goes to the past, listening to his tapes and in the future realizes his mistakes and curses that he has now, or will, figure that out and not then. #$”!!”#$? Krap! #$% and throws the metal boxes where this record of pathetic years are stored.

It is recurrent in almost, if not all, novels, plays, movies, or poems that I read, the pursuit of happiness, I’ve blogged several times about it, I referred to the movie with this title talking about The Road by Cormac McCarthy. “'Flagging pursuit of happiness. Unattainable laxation. Sneers at what he calls his youth and thanks to God that it's over.'” He was, or is, or stopped being, in that pursuit of happiness and in this future he gives up and finds out that it is indeed an “unattainable laxation” and he is turning sixty nine and did not obtain it. I don’t think he thanks god that his youth is over, he laments it, otherwise he would not find himself in the state he finds himself and less so listening to his past. That is why he adds after a (Pause) “False ring there.” He wishes to go back and is infinitely unhappy with his present, therefore with his future.

Driving Himself Crazy

This old man, Krapp, is immensely disorientated, desolated, nostalgic, and most of all mentally perturbed. There is a lot of silence in the performance, its not surprising since there is only one actor and the tape that he plays on stage. This silences, along with the emptiness of the stage and the body language of the actor, Patrick Magee, reflect the disappointment of life that the character realizes he had been living for the last sixty nine years. It is his own blankness and desperation that has lead him to insanity. Undeniably he is crazy or on the way to craziness, his movements and face expressions demonstrate the contrary to sanity. The title of the piece Krapp’s Last Tape is indeed the ending scene of a man. Within whom Samuel Beckett might see himself or identifies with the feeling of blankness that Krapp is feeling.

There is a bit, if not absolute of obsessive behavior in Krapp. The way he takes the bananas, looks at them as if asking himself what they are (0:53 Part I) and pills them, both, and eats them while he wonders at uneven pace back and forth in front of his desk. More so the way he walks all the way to the wall to go in a straight line toward the doors where he gets the metal boxes and tape recorder that he will listen to for the rest of the play. He does this several times doing exactly the same path to go through the doors, which is schematic and repetitive. The same way his life has been. So schematic that he has been recording his life for a long time every birthday, and he listens to the tapes and reminds himself that he has been a failure and that his “best years are gone” (6:48 Part IV). And yet he still records another one for this sixty-ninth birthday. This obsessive behavior has to be an indication of Beckett’s own behavior.

What impressed me the most was the disturbed face that the actor does not drop. His movements are those of an old man, but, as I said before a mentally sick old man. He listens to the tapes extremely concentrated and distressed, he is listening to himself so there is meta fiction in the play. He is driving himself crazy.

Confidence In Branagh

Wow.
I felt like watching the trailer of Troy for the first time in the movies and telling my mom “Omg mama we have to watch this movie” and later, seven years later, I happen to be watching it again because I’m studying Ancient Greek’s mythology and history. I have watched Troy so many times that I cant remember but it do remember that it did sparked my first interest to history, which has not ceased till now. I feel that this movie is going to be as cool as Troy is, and as Branagh says it is “part of cultural life” (5:26). I have not read Hamlet but I do have and idea of what it is about, and not because I had a class that taught me so but because I’ve heard it and I know about it just as I know that in England the cars are the other way around.

So what do I expect? I expect a movie that I will understand, fluently, of Shakespeare because to say the truth I did not fully understood Macbeth and I know it was a great produced movie, but the English was difficult and the scenes were not interesting. I expect a captivating movie, full of suspense, action scenes, love scenes, and the outstanding Hamlet scenes that most be shown. It is indeed a “tip top cast” (3:06) and so much can be expected from them. Kate Winslet is for me, the best actress among many and I don’t doubt her ability to perform in a major film like this one. That will be passed on from generation to generation, and will be without a doubt remembered. What I really hope is for the film to instill the love and appreciation that most feel for a play like Hamlet, and only by hearing Branagh talk about the play and talk about Shakespeare it did create a curiosity in me to get to know it better, know the essence of its beauty and art, I have confidence in Branagh.

Closed The Book

And I closed the book. I have to confess I was coward enough, or brave enough, to share a tear. I am asked to blog about the book, and I’ve decided to write how I felt while reading it. I won’t talk about literary devices or figurative language or symbolism. I was touched by the book, and I think a great part of being a reader is having some kind of relationship with the book and therefore with the author. I did create a bond with the book, and that doesn’t happen often unless it is a book I decided to pick up and read and not an assignment for a class, which is what The Road was. And I will tell you why.

There are basically two characters, the man and the boy. That’s it, there are no mayor events nor complicated plots or undecipherable paradigms, but yet the simple setting is so profound (and I feel a little nerd saying this) that McCarthy’s word choice and sentence structure involves the merit of #1 National Bestseller. As a matter of fact, I decided, for the first time to read The Road while I was at the gym (I had not done that before because the gym for me it’s a time to relax and forget about school) and my trainer told me that he had slept throughout the whole movie. I tried to picture it and I guess it is very slow and boring, full of artistic shots where one flying piece of paper with the wind represents the loneliness and despair that the protagonists are experimenting, and those are the kinds of movies that few people enjoy, and I guess my trainer is right to fall asleep, he has not read the book.

Naturally while any reader reads any book, the previous knowledge and experiences start connecting automatically with the piece of text that is being read. The front cover of the book reminded me of Steve Conrad’s movie The Pursuit of Happiness (2006) which has a similar cover, a man holding hands left with a boy that appears to be his son. Going through miserable times. Yet there is not point of comparison to the level of miserable that each of them are going through. Chris Gardner (Will Smith) has a deficit of money and finds himself in bankruptcy, while The Man from The Road has a deficit of life and money doesn’t even get in the picture. But the paternal love is present and is the force that makes both the Man and Chris Gardener keep on fighting everyday, differently, but to survive. In a scene Gardener tells his son “Don’t ever let somebody tell you you can’t do something. Not even me, alright?”, in The Road, when the Man is dying they have a comparable dialogue
“I want to be with you.
You cant.
Please.
You cant. You have to carry the fire.
I don’t know how to.
Yes you do.” (pg. 278)
In different circumstances love is the key factor, as cliché as it may sound. We keep on watching, hearing, reading about love. And we will keep on knowing about it.

The next connection I made was, coincidentally, to a movie also with Will Smith, I Am Legend (Francis Lawrence) where a plague has killed all humanity and Robert Neville (Smith) is the last man on earth, with a dog. He is all alone, and scared to be attacked that is the similitude with The Road, being scared of being attacked, always paranoid and alert. There is even a dog in The Road “They listened. Then in the distance he heard a dog bark.” (pg.82) they stay with him for a while but it didn’t last long. But it is the loneliness that both the movie and the book share, alone on earth not knowing whether they would wake up the next morning. Robert is afraid of the monsters that the plague that killed everybody infected the ones that survived, and The Man is afraid of the “bad guys”.

I also compared The Road with 1984, even though in 1984 it was an absolute organized and disciplined society, they are being watched all the time by Big Brother and the protagonist, jut like the Man, wants to go against the authority that is controlling the society. The existence of greater authority or force that controls the few humans still alive in The Road is not so explicit, but there is one.
“I think we should take a look. We just have to be careful. If it’s a commune they’ll have barricades. But it may just be refugees.
Like us.
Yes. Like us.” (pg. 79)
There is a division between the “good guys” who are the characters, and the “bad guy” who is the rest, and these seem to have “barricades” that they fear. But I got the impression that these bad guys seem to have a sect, a disciplined and oppressed group of people and they have the world, or what is left of it, under their control, the control that the Man and Winston Smith (from 1984) are fleeing, scared.

But among the other few connection I made I found myself with two main factors that are repeatedly present in the novel: fear and love. These two are often linked together, more so is love and suffering, as I said when I talked about The Knight’s Tale from Canterbury’s Tales from Chaucer. And as old as Canterbury’s Tales is and as contemporary The Road is, they both are tales and both are about a journey and both talk about fear, or suffering, and love. And so does Michael Ondaatje in Coming Through Slaughter, with Buddy in love with Nora and fearing his own insanity, and so does F. Scott Fitzgerald in The Great Gatsby with the love triangle, or more less square, between Tom, Daisy, Gatsby and Myrtle, and the fear that Daisy and Gatsby feel about Tom and the whole thing ends up in suffering.

So the Man dies, and I cry. Because I have felt love and I have felt feel and maybe not so much suffering but something similar, and I felt sorry for the boy and I felt sorry for McCarthy for writing this story. And I felt sorry for myself because I cried reading words. Words that led me to all the connections I made and to file one more book in my brain.

The Son's Tale

I really don’t know how we got till here
All I Know is that I feel a great fear
Of the bad guys and the ones that are sad
They scream “help” and we can’t help, I feel bad
I also fear that my Papa and I 5
Will stop going south and suddenly die.
He says we won’t, but I think that he lies.
I’ve seen a dog and some little mice,
And a little boy, just like I, poor boy
So scared he was, so far away from joy. 10
But I had to leave him there, all alone.
Papa said “there’s nothin’ we could’ve done”
Papa is so wise and he is so good,
Even when he is not in the right mood.
I try to be a good son, I prefer 15
That I don’t make him suffer more than her
She was mean to go away, suddenly.
I remember her existence only
But he remembers her entirely
In his thoughts and mind he should not ever rely 20
I have heard him weep over her at night
He always says what she did was not right.
Sometimes I hope that to us she comes back
Oh! Another person we would not lack.
We are only the two of us, that’s it. 25
And any interaction we omit
There is no one left to trust Papa says,
As long as I have him, it is okay.

The road seems to never end, keeps going.
I keep on walking behind, unknowing. 30
Where we are heading, but I trust his will
All this misery is with his goodwill
I do know that we are not the bad guys,
I also know that there are no allies.
Because everybody else aren’t nice. 35
There’s nobody left, to be precise.
We are carrying a gun all the time
Papa has shot it, and is not a crime
He won’t ever let anybody touch me
That’s why to be vigilant is the key. 40
We are going to die soon, I know that
We cannot stay for so long in combat.
I am so so skinny and so hungry
And not finding food makes him so angry.
In abandoned houses there is food 45
Sometimes bad sometimes good.
I got sick once with fever and cold
Very tight Papa had me withhold
He got so worried he thought I would die
I think a tear he dropped from his eye. 50
And later I got better thanks to God
Are you okay? Papa said, I would nod.

And so on goes my tale, day and night.
Waking everyday looking for a bite
It has not ended yet I hope it does 55
This happy life is not the way it goes.
I dream of a world of joy and delight
And not of this world of eternal night.

Seems To Be

I have to confess that I really didn’t see the point of The Great Gatsby while reading it. I thought it was boring and I didn’t understand the story very well and much less why I was assigned to read it. I found myself distracted and “half asleep” like Sonya Chung did when she was 13 years old and read the novel for the first time. And when I surprised myself in that state I would re read the page annoyed but did find some sense to the sentences I was skimming through the page. I am sure I never understood it because after reading this blog entry by Chung and after the little discussions we have had in class, it all makes sense now. Something similar happened to me last summer while reading Dante’s Inferno, but that time I was very close to committing suicide because I read a whole book and had not understood a verse of it (not a paragraph because I now know it was a poem). When I got to class and we took time discussing it, it was like when somebody explains to you a joke that everybody laughed out but you didn’t because you didn’t get it. I laughed along.

The Great Gatsby appears then to be magnificent. If I remember right, there were some things that I did find interesting. Like the scene when Daisy, Tom, Gatsby, Nick and Jordan are at a suite in the Plaza Hotel and they are discussing many different things that seem to have nothing to do with the other and the whole discussion and things that are happening confuse the reader, just as the characters are confused, and this happens to be the beginning of the climax of the novel when Gatsby argues, violently, with Tom over Daisy’s love. And then the yellow car kills Myrtle. “The other car, the one going toward New York, came to rest a hundred yards beyond, and its driver hurried back to where Myrtle Wilson, her life violently extinguished, knelt in the road and mingled her think dark blood with the dust.” (pg. 137) Any more description? They are indeed “luminous sentences” as Sonya Chung points out. What a shame that I missed them. No kidding, I would like to reread The Great Gastby some day, not soon, but some day.

Rules Broken

The way I was taught to write “don’t” “didn’t” “can’t” and any other abbreviations is with an apostrophe as a sign of the conjunction of two different words.
Examples:
Do + not = don’t
Did + not = didn’t
Can + not = can’t
Among other abbreviations that also include a apostrophe ‘ in between. But, Cormac McCarthy does not follow the rule. You usually break rules for two reasons: You want to be a rebel and go against any norm just because you want attention, or you simply don’t care. Putting the situation in context, I think both characters don’t care anymore. They’ve been through enough, their only concern is to survive. Find food, shelter, not the apostrophe in “don’t”. Of corse “the man” and “the child” have nothing to do with the apostrophe or their own narration, but McCarthy does. And he has transmitted that sense to me, a reader (duuh). In the circumstances that the characters are living, those details don’t matter. Plus, I believe, that they are hiding from a bigger mass of people “the bad guys” (pg. 92), therefore, they are rebels, they go against what an authority is implying. Refuges. So they have the urge to go against the rules, just like McCarthy is doing.

I also learned that dialogues have quotations “” or an – to indicate that two people, or more, in a story, are talking. That is the usual standards for writing in English. But I’ve seen exceptions; however every author is the creator of the novel and can do with it what he pleases. There are no apostrophes and no quotations, for any dialogue. Why? There is no need actually. Up to page 115, there haven’t been more than two persons in a dialogue. There is no place for confusion. And there is no concern to distinguish or use the proper punctuation for a dialogue in the story.
“Are they gone, Papa?
Yes, they’re gone.
Did you seen them?
Yes.
Were they the bad guys?”
(pg. 92)
Did you understand?

Short.

The sentences are short. And concise. As if they were in a hurry. Or not in the mood. He is sad and desperate. With his boy. Poor kid wonders if he is going to die. Maybe the short stories are his fast thoughts. Among many thoughts. That trouble his mind in his already troubled life. They are homeless. “They went back up the hill and made their camp in the dry dirt under the rocks and the man sat with his arms around the boy trying to warm him.” (pg. 9) Now im desperate, just like them. The short sentences make me uncertain, just like them. Like the ideas are cut in the middle, a stop in the journey, an inconvenience. I live in the 21st century, just like them. And I see people like them all the time. They most live a life of short sentences. Of short moments. A series of short moments that make up a lifetime. Scared moments that make the adrenaline influence the thoughts and go faster. Shorter. That make you run along The Road. Run in short fast steps. “Okay.” (pg. 10-11-36-43-52-60-77…)

Is This A Joke?

I’ve noticed a bit of contradiction in all the tales. More in the characters themselves than in their stories. The Knight was so knighty that most of what he said was not true, it was obviously exaggerated and taken to a level of fantasy. The Miller claims to have a tale as good as the Knight’s Tale and it a grotesque and low class. The Wife of Bath is very much a contradiction, she gets all tangled up in her beliefs and her role as a wife, of five husbands. And The Pardoner seems to be the top of hypocrisy. There is a lot of irony, the famous and so beloved irony.

For definition a pardoner is “: a medieval preacher delegated to raise money for religious works by soliciting offerings and granting indulgences” and “: one that pardons”. Delegated to raise money, yet NOT to keep the money. It is the one that pardons, and in order to pardon, or forgive a person, in my beliefs, you shouldn’t do what you are forgiving. In other words, if I forgive Pepita for lying to me, I should not lie, because then I would not have to forgive her because I do it myself. Get me? But IRONICALLY in the Prologue the pardoner, without any shame admits his relics are fake, the ones he sells and the ones that all the pilgrim believe to have healing powers. But not only he is a liar, but greedy. Greedy people can others to get a profit. “By this gaude have I wonne, yeer by yeer, An hundred mark sith I was pardoner. “ (The Prologue, lines 389-390) AND HE ADMITS IT! This tale is an exaggeration of irony, it is hipocrecy “sin aguero” (a Colombian expression to describe something that was done without shame).

And that is only the Prologue. Then comes the Tale. The ending reminded me of Romeo and Juliet, after the two fellows kill their friend to get a bigger share of the gold, they To take the botel ther the poyson was, And drank, and yaf his felawe drynke also, For which anon they storven bothe two. (The Pardoner’s Tale, lines 886-888). The difference is that in Romeo and Juliet, they die for love and passion for the other one, in this tale, they die of greed. Exactly about what the pardoner preaches about. The story is a good story, it resembles the stories of the bible or the stories that our mothers used to read to us for us to learn virtues and morals, and consequences to our actions. I think The Pardoner did not have that kind of mother, he lacks those moral stories, yet he is incredibly skillful to mesmerize the pilgrims with his forgiveness and ethic lectures.

A Deplorable Person

My conclusion,
Lenore is lost, lost and dead, he wants to see her again, so badly that he imagines her . Lenore is the name the angels call her, for no living person has a name by the angels, so she must be dead. He asks the Raven, who obviously is the death, if he has the chance to see Lenore “within the distant Aiden”, that is his last desire. He is in his death bed, “nevermore” will he live again, at least not as a sane person. The Raven is just informing him, that Lenore is, indeed, lost, and he is lost as well.
“Though its answer little meaning—little relevancy bore;
For we cannot help agreeing that no living human being
Ever yet was blessed with seeing bird above his chamber door— “
(Edgar Allen Poe, 9)
He is no longer a living human being, he himself admits it. He is just a soul that …
“And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor
Shall be lifted—nevermore!” (E.A.P 18)
He is accepting slowly that he is becoming a deplorable person , in grief and agony for his lost Lenore, remembering her and forgetting her.

A Little Confused

I am not sure what this Wife is trying to transmit. She starts by justifying that she has had five husbands. She talks about Jacob and Abraham having many wives and God encouraging procreation. She talks about virginity and how to have sex is not a sin, and she supports all her arguments from the Bible, and they all seem to be valid “Al nys but conseil to virginitee.” (Prologue, line 82) She argues that, indeed God talks about virginity as something divine and pure and recommendable, it is only an advice and that therefore she is in all her right to marry whoever and how many she desires and obviously sleep with who ever she wants to. But she, such a gentle and… classy… wife was not sinful but clever and a wise wife.

But, why is she so persuasive in justifying her actions if she knew she was innocent, or pure of sin? This kind of argumentation and use of rhetoric is usually applied by people that feel that are guilty and need excuses for their actions. I imagine a murderer telling a judge why his crime should be justified. The murderer may very likely be sure that what he did was completely valid, and that he should not be accused for committing a crime. The judge and everybody else know he is guilty, and he himself may know too, but the arguments can even be plausible. The Wife is a lustful, gold-digger, gossiper and clever women indeed.

I feel a little sorry for her. She is not aware that what she is saying is not really making people be amazed by how right she is and how intelligent but feel pity for her, and maybe that is what she wants, to have pity. While telling her tale, by her own, she gets tangled up and contradicts herself. She talks about how money and pleasing a wife is so important and then, talking about her 5th husband, which appears to be the one she loved, the only one she loved, she seems to not care so much about his status, “My fifthe housbonde -- God his soule blesse! --Which that I took for love, and no richesse,” (Prologue, lines 525-526) So… she is confused.

The tale is her reality. It is a fixed, edited, and dramatized version of her real story. The Wife is just like the queen, she seems to have it all, she appears to be the master on marriage and on how to handle a man to get what she wants, but she doesn’t. The answer to the queen’s question, what the knight finds out, “"Wommen desiren to have sovereynetee As wel over hir housbond as hir love, And for to been in maistrie hym above.” (Tale, lines 1038-1040) is what she needs! She wants to have control! Not to be the one controlled, she depends on men, and gossip, and money. She is poor and lonely. Her only way to be satisfied is taking advantage that she is a women, her sexuality and manipulation. She has become a pro in rhetoric, it is her necessity. The whole prologue is rhetoric, justifying her actions.

I feel a little sorry for her. Her intense desire to have control demonstrates that in that time, wives were no more than…housewifes. Wives were below the man, and this Wife refused to be.

"OOH" "AAH" "Jajaja"

The drunk Miller decides he will tell a tale. I imagine the scene like this:
Everybody is in a bar, a cantine kind of bar, cheering and drinking beer and wine. Some are brave enough to tell a tale, both for the fun of it and to brag. The knight, as to be expected comes first, most of what he says sound like BS but definitely a very knighty tale. Then the miller, who did not want to be left behind stands up, so drunk he even says “And therfore if that I mysspeke or seye, Wyte it the ale of Southwerk, I you preye.” (Prologue, lines 3139-3140) And begins to tell his tale with no embarrassment, whatsoever. The noblemen are in the cantine listening too, and the rest of the village, aware of what every person will say and if it involves them or hoping not be on spotlight for any mistake of sin they’ve committed. It is gossip! Pure gossip.

The Miller wants to proof that he can have tale just as the knight has tales and that they are as well interesting. It reminds me of my friends, drunk, trying to tell an anecdote and inventing half of it partly because they are drunk and partly because they want to make it interesting. The whole scene reminds me of a bunch of people getting drunk and gossiping about each others lives and lies and truths surge from the tales causing “ooh”s and “aah”s form the listeners.

Redundantly The Miller’s Tale if far off the Knight’s Tale. It is a joke. And may be that the miller, apart from wanting to claim his status, (and he does as a miller indeed) he wants to be funny. “This Nicholas anon leet fle a fart As greet as it had been a thonder-dent,” (Tale, lines 3806-3807) This is hilarious. Any story with a fart in it is hilarious. The miller did end up being funny, but further away from the nobility of a Knight.

Just Wondering

There was one phrase that I really liked. In The Knight’s Tale “Then is it best, for a worthy fame, To die when he has the most fame.” (Part IV lines 3055-3056). It made me go back to the last match of Andre Agassi, in the U.S Open, I was little and I asked my father “Why is he retiring when he is so young? He can still play Tennis” and he told me “Sweetheart, it is best to retire when you are at your highest point and not when you are forgotten and defeated”. I’ve always remembered that. I still wonder how can you calculate when you are at your highest point. How can you have the wisdom to stop and not stay there for the greed of more fame or victories and ending up loosing everything. It applies to Poker too. And with Aquiles, that it also has a connection with The Knight’s Tale, since it takes place in Greece. “When Hector was brought, just recently slain, To Troy. Alas, the lamentation that was there,” (Part IV lines 3832-3833) Referring to the pain of loosing someone. Aquiles was killed being a celebrity, the bravest hero and the worst villain. He did it just right, by chance though, he didn’t choose to live at his highest point. Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe, even Heath Ledger just after playing the role of Joker in The Dark Knight (The Knight’s Tale, The Dark Knight, see the connection?), but they died, they left tragically, if they had not died at that time, would they have been strong enough to leave when they had to?

Painfully Inlove

What is it with love and suffering? Why are they always linked and connected and even seem to be synonyms? I guess, like many musicians have said, love is a disease. And happens to be that in The Knight’s Tale, love is the issue, too. I guess there isn’t a way to escape it. I’ve noticed that about 90% of the songs in the world are about love, or finding a love mate, or the pain that love causes, among all the problems that brings falling for someone, that must not be a coincidence. Not only in music, almost every novel, and book I’ve read there is a love story in it. And The Knight’s Tale isn’t the exception.

The story is basic, two men, that are cousins, fall for the same woman, and they end up fighting to death for her. It kinda is cliché in a way, but it is the first time that I know of someone that fights till, literary, death, for love. Poor Arcite ends up without Emelye. There is some bit of hyperbole in The Knight’s Tale, but since it is a poem it is to be expected. For example, from lines 2770 to 2782, Arcite is lamenting, woeing, and saying goodbye to Emelye, hurtfully. “That I have suffered for you, and so long! Alas, the death! Alas, my Emelye!” (Part IV lines 2772-2773) I feel sorry for him. It is physical pain he is suffering for the love he feels, apart from the fact that he is dying. I really hope that doesn’t happen to me, neither the dying part nor the falling in love.

On the other hand, there is the winner story. Lucky Palamon, gets to stay with Emelye after a god’s level fight, marry her and live happily ever after. “For now is Palamon in complete happiness, Living in bliss, in riches, and in health, And Emelye loves him so tenderly,” (Part IV lines 3101-3103) Every man’s dream. This tale shows the two sides of love, the happily ever after, the one we are seeking and will always seek, because of what I’ve said earlier in my previous entry, we are condemned to the pursuit of happiness, and there is the painful, heart breaking, horrible part of love. The Ying and Yang, good and evil. Love is not just hearts and roses.

Con-nections

I see some connection to many things. The first part of The Knight’s Tale felt to me as if I had read that before. I feel it was some resemblance to the way the Genesis is written. Even though the Genesis is not a poem and is therefore not written in verse, the phrases are short and concise, every phrase, or verse of the poem is a sentence that has its own meaning and if it is taken away from the poem it still makes sense, alone. The same principle applies to the Genesis, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” (1:1 Genesis) it alone makes sense. The same as if you take “There was a duke who was called Theseus;”(Part 1 860). You get the idea.

Apart form the fact that the way it is written resembles to me the Bible, there were some contents that made me do the connection too. The word “God” is repeated various times and the driven concept is the same, as holy authority and final judge, creator, king of kings, etc… It talks about mercy, and treason, punishment, regard, even pursuit of happiness which got me thinking in Confucius and the Tao Te Ching the eternal pursuit of happiness that also reminds me of The Great Gatsby and Seize The Day. “We seek eagerly after felicity, But we go wrong very often, truly.” (Part 1 1266-1267) It is an explanation of what we do and do not do, how we do it, how it depends on each person. We go back to the same questions and may be similar answers, no matter if the text is 3 years old or 200 years old, we are still the same. Referring to the Genesis, The Knight’s Tale even refers to a serpent, “Alas, I see a serpent or a thief, That has done mischief to many a true man,” (Part 1 1325-1326) it is the same a thief, a sense of evil, just like the serpent that made Eva eat the forbidden fruit.

Evidently The Knight’s Tale has a connection to Greek mythology, Athens, the duke Theseus, the goddess and the magical powers, but ironically it talks about the God, the one and only God. For now, I have a bunch of questions, just like the universe and human kind has always had, waiting to be answered.

Nice Ride

I agree, point A to point B, different devices or modes of transportation, comparing books, life, big allegory and all.
My way of looking at is that we, at the end, all get there by mind. What do I mean? We get to our destination (destiny, fate, goal…) through the pathways of our mind, imagination some say. I might get to Antarctica right now, at the same time I’m writing this, even feel cold. Maybe not even imagination but through consciousnes, senses and awareness that we are moving.
Probably I’m off track with what you are trying to transmit to us but I guess Don Quijote wouldn’t have horseback ride if Cervantes had not done it by mind previously, get me?
I hope I get to the end of this course safe, physically and mentally. In whatever mode of transportation I choose, or you choose, since you are the author of the novel AP Literature. And if I get to the end of this course hurt, I hope it was because I had a nice ride.

I Might Not Get There

RANG
No more sleeping late.
or staring at the ceiling.
Read, study, memorize, study, write, read,
write.
RANG
failed?