Edward II

I thought that Edward II was random with its characters. Every scene seemed to bring in a new character that everyone seemed to know. I didn't understand how Spencer just seemed to walk in to the play and next thing we know he is following around the king after Gaveston dies. One thing that really made me mad was the Queen. She claims to be completely in love with the Edward even though he spends more time with Gaveston and that she wants nothing to do with Mortimer, but in the end she helps plot with Mortimer to let him kill Edward. All of her competition for the king's affection is gone when Gaveston dies so she didn't have to let them kill Edward. 

It is really easy to sympathize with Edward because everything is going wrong for him. He is head over heels for Gaveston and everyone hates all of the policies that he has. Sometimes I think that Marlowe went a overboard with the whininess of King Edward. It seems like everything that comes out of his mouth is painful and depressing. For example, "My daily diet is heart-breaking sobs that almost rents the closet of my heart." Over and over again having to read this just got boring. The one thing that made me really hate King Edward was when he sent off his son so nonchalantly when France took over Normandy. He was so selfish thinking only of avenging Gaveston's death that he just throws his son to possibly get killed in France, but I think anyone would do that for the one they love. Marlowe in a sense though, made it seem like the prince was very young. When I was reading it I was thinking to myself that the prince was only five years old or something. In the end when the prince is so determined to avenge his father's death I realized he may have been old enough to handle himself in France.  

Week Four - The Faerie Queen

What always interests me in reading a work like "The Faerie Queene" is how easily a meaning can be assigned to it. Do we really know that Spencer meant for his work to be taken on a religious or political level? Are the scholars that study works like this just over analyzing the things that were written long ago? Maybe Spencer really just liked the idea of women-dragons and false beautiful witches.

I have to say, overall, if I were to purely read "The Faerie Queene" as a commentary on religion or politics, I would not enjoy it. So I ended up just ignoring that route and decided to just pay attention to the pure plot of the story. The more I get into English studies, I realize that plot isn't as dominant as is analysis and interpretation. Where is the fun in that? Sometimes it's nice to just read an adventure tale, allowing yourself to get caught up in it! That being said, Spencer was a great adventure tale writer. He knew how to keep it interesting with including disguises and bursting baby monsters. I commend him for his vivid imagination.

Week 4 - The Faerie Queene

Edmund Spencer set lofty goals for himself when he set out to write The Faerie Queene. Spencer was looking to create an English epic, steeped in literary history and abounding with nuances attuned to England's own story. Amazingly Spencer accomplished this feat, truly a display of his own prowess. It is a shame that Spencer died with only six books of The Faeire Queene written(he had originally planned on at least double that). The Faerie Queene is a literary masterpiece being required reading for English poets and writers since Spencer's time. However, even though this work is so amazing, I just don't like it.

I'm not sure why The Faerie Queene rubbed me in such the wrong way. Perhaps it was the simplistic nature of the story. "But Wait!" scholars will say. "The Faerie Queene has so many levels, how could you consider it simplistic." True, Spencer's work is meant to be read allegorically, with many readers drawing different interpretations from the same story. Yet the most common allegories beat you over the head. Just look at the names of the characters. The villains are given clearly bad names and the "good" characters are given appropriate names as well. Many of the more interesting allegories are up for debate as to whether the were intended by the author or if the are just brought about by the open ended nature of the work. The actual plot of the story, what we referred to as the 12-year-old, is so simplistic as to be laughable to many readers. The only thing that made the plot harder to follow was Spencer's writing style.

All my complaints have one lingering issue in the background. Spencer's work is an imitation. Spencer is attempting to take great literary traditions of the past and incorporate them into a modern(at his time) work. This means it is a work lacking in real creativity and innovation. So much of of his work is taken from the ancient Greek and Roman tradition's which had more recently already been imitated by the continent during the beginning of it's Renaissance. I know these nods to classical literature have been a long standing tradition and is still found today, but it still bothers me in The Faerie Queene. Spencer's work is one that is written by the book, using traditional tropes and merely slapping on a Protestant covering to make it a new work.

I've been overly harsh, Spencer was a great writer and The Faerie Queene is a classic. However it is a literary exercise and doesn't really harness the power of storytelling as I think it should have.

Week 4 - Spencer is, in fact, Badass

I have to say, I went to Catholic schools for eleven years (by no stretch of the imagination am I Catholic, that's just how things worked out) and not once did my religion teacher mention the whore of Babylon riding in on a seven-headed beast when the earth ends. It figures they would cut out the fun bits. I must have skipped over that page in Revelations. This is just me appreciating the 12 year old boy aspect of the Fairie Queene. Contrary to the imagery suggested by the title, there is quite a healthy serving of blood, guts, dragons and witches. I approve.

I do wonder, however, if our interpretations are correct. If Spencer were to sit in on our discussions, would he commend us on our cunning ability to decipher his work and discover the deeper meaning behind the 12 year old boy appeal of the Fairie Queene? Or would he simply inform us that the dragon is not Catholicism or Immorality or the embodiment of all that is hellish and evil; it is merely a badass, fire-breathing, steel-scaled lizard of mayhem and destruction and we are cheapening its badassness with out fancy interpretations and associations. Shame on us.

On a more scholarly and less badass note, I most certainly appreciate Spencer's transformation of Una from a damsel in distress to a heroine. She didn't save little forest animals, she didn't save another woman, she didn't even save a regular old Joe; she saved a knight. Specifically, she saved the knight that was supposed to be saving her. Whether or not Una represents Queen Elizabeth (which I do in fact think she does), I appreciate a woman being portrayed as heroic, especially considering the time period.

As for the political aspect, it seems that nobody has ever liked Catholics. I am also enrolled in a Victorian literature course and the Bronte sisters seemed to loathe Catholics as well.

What I find most impressive though is Spencer's a ability to maintain a rhyme scheme throughout the entire story! I was so wrapped up in the plot that I did not even realize there were rhyme schemes present! It is flawless. I can not even begin to imagine the effort and time he put into that. It is no wonder he was unable to complete it. Spot on, Spencer. Spot on.

Edward II

Upon reading Edward II in today's society, one can gain a lot of perspective, knowledge and emotion, because of its social and political relevance to today's issues. Specifically, the issue of homosexuality and the vastness of acceptance that it entails. What struck me most about this Renaissance piece is just how relevant it is to today's society. It definitely makes one wonder just how much society has grown and evolved in terms of acceptance and tolerance, seeing as many of the attitudes in this play reflect those of American society's current state. The people opposed to Gaveston and Edward's relationship are either in denial of love themselves or close-minded and cruel. This play is still relevant to one of the biggest issues in society today, and should thus be continued to be read, because it educates others and provides a voice for an issue that should not be turned away.

Continuing on the idea of the current relevance of the play, Edward II, in the first half that has been read, is as much of a love story as Romeo and Juliet. Its two main characters are entangled in a forbidden love. It has all the elements of a love story - one of the characters being so blinded by love that it overtakes every emotion and responsibility. As Mortimer Senior puts it in scene 2, "Is it not strange that he is thus bewitched," referring to Edwad's infatuation with Gaveston. Marlowe does a wonderful job at portraying the blindness of love and the absurd emotions and actions that come with it, regardless of the orientation of the lovers involved. Love is portrayed as pure and unconditional, and as helpless as ever. It so far seems to be a play holding true emotions and issues connected to every individual in some way.

The Faerie Queen Sept. 24

I must admit I was a bit frustrated with Spencer when I first encountered his writing. I was lost and confused with what he was trying to portray. However, once accustomed to his writing, I found him interesting and overall entertaining. The Faerie Queen was mystical and reminded me of childhood when the stories we watched captivated us to become the characters. At the same time the Faerie Queen has more in depth elements one being deceit and deception and many religious undertones. In class we discussed how duality disguise and deceit are relating to Catholicism. Throughout the story it seems there is this ongoing idea of true faith essentially the battle between Christ against Satin. This idea of Redcrosse saving the island and the King to regain true faith and destroy the dragon (satin). Dragon could also depict Ireland or any other country trying to defeat England. The six year service that Redcrosse must serve to the Faerie Queen before marrying Una was symbolic of the everlasting battle against sin. Basically the battle against the dragon isn’t the end, there are always difficulties that we must face.
I also was fascinated by Una’s background story that was being told in the middle of the story. We discussed in class the Latin term, En Medias Res which translates to “starting in the middle”. Spencer could have used this to keep the reader interested or to better develop the character throughout the story.

Week 4-Enough with The Faerie Queene

Considering we talked about The Faerie Queene in class a for a week, I wrote my paper on it, and already posted a blog about it there isn't that much for me to say at this point. One thing I have to admit that I would never bother to tie in with the story is its references to Ireland. I saw it only as a political and religious allegory but to Catholicism and Queen Elizabeth. Now after finding out the background story of Spenser's time in Ireland I can tell that some of the fights within the story can tie into fights with Ireland. England had to protect themselves not only from religious invaders but also against what Spenser considered the barbaric nature of Ireland. One thing that baffles me the most about Spenser is if he hated Ireland so much why didn't he just leave and get another job as a public servant. I just feel as though Spenser was torturing himself in Ireland when he didn't really have to. Me personally, if I didn't like a country I would leave. 

Week 3 - Queen Elizabeth

This week, I intend to look at the exchange between Sir Walter Ralegh and Queen Elizabeth. In class there was some discussion about which party had the better of the exchange. There are definite arguments for both sides however it all depends on how we are approaching the issue.

First from a purely literary standpoint, Ralegh's poetry is clearly superior. I am not someone who likes poetry, nor am I one who has a mastery of poetry in general, however Walter Ralegh is an accomplished poet who I had even heard of. Admittedly there is some bias in my judge of Ralegh as the better poet. He uses a concise style of poetry with little complex adornment that gets straight to the point. Elizabeth on the other hand is clearly mimicking Renaissance poetry with her style, which her mastery of is questionable. Her response feels more like that of a high school student imitating other poets. She fails to display that mastery of the art of crafting words that signifies a talented poet. This is not to take away from Queen Elizabeth, she was an amazingly smart women trained for the throne, however poetry is not her strong suit.

On the other hand, in class many expressed the opinion that Elizabeth was the clear victor in this exchange. This view is supported by the practical issue of power. Elizabeth's power over Ralegh was twofold. First as a Queen she was controller of all of England, someone who could put her enemies to death on a whim. Elizabeth fully understands this power and her regal attitude leaks into the tone she uses to address Ralegh. The other aspect of her power is purely sexual. Ralegh's desire for Elizabeth places him in a position of supplication which Elizabeth plays with in her writing. So wile Ralegh's writing is in itself superior to Elizabeth's, the real roles of power play a clear effect in determining that Elizabeth got the better of the exchange with Ralegh.

Tree Hugger?

Never in my life have I read such vast description about trees as Spencer includes in this story. He describes nature altogether in a way I never thought of. I never thought of a Beech tree as "warlike" or an Eugh as "obedient." However, Spencer does not only describe the trees, but provides details about all things natural in a style which reminds me of Yeats and many other Early Irish writers. Furthermore, Spencer seems to have a heavy emphasis on innocence. He depicts the Lady's donkey as "more white than snow," and the Lady herself as "much whiter." It is clear that he is making an attempt at establishing a certain picture in the mind of the reader. He mentions the color white three different times in the same paragraph, and each time the color is linked to the Lady.

Week Three- Faerie Queene

Similar to what was said in class about the villains in the story, I noticed that the majority of the time Redcrosse takes what they say to be true, and then later realizes their falsehood. For example with Archimago, Redcrosse trusts him and then later is deceived by his false appearance. Archimago turns out to be a dark sorcerer that separates Una from Redcrosse by planting false images (spirits) in his dreams. The same goes for Duessa, she too appears to be a lovely woman, whom Redcrosse falls in love (or lust?) with. Yet, inside she is an evil witch who is trying to trap him or bring him over to the dark side! On Redcrosse's defense there was really no way of knowing that these people were leading him into a trap (at first). It seemed that they were really trying to help him, or just so happened to cross paths with him. How was he to know he would be following a woman to the palace of pride? It seemed like such good fun!

As we said in class, the bad guys normally appear to say the right thing at first, so that we can't know that they are bad until they reveal themselves to us. This is supposed to be similar to Christianity: you can't see the evil in something until it is upon you(or Catholicism I suppose). So my question is this, according to this view of Christianity, do all people need to be deceived first before they can see the truth in something? If that is the case then, how is someone supposed to know what deception is until they are almost trapped by it? In Redcrosse's case, he is a brave knight and the ultimate personification of holiness, so of course he can get out of the traps laid for him. But what about the rest of the people that this book was written to help direct, the "non-knightly" folk? Will they ultimately get trapped by deception and evilness? Is there any hope for them?

It seems that Spencer is writing for an ideal way of life, but how can it possibly be true, or even followed? People get deceived, people go the wrong way, and most people aren't strong enough to ignore temptation and falsities. In that, I feel that Spencer was writing similar to More. They both had this idea of how life should be lived, yet was it really attainable? - In reality I don't think so.

Queen Elizabeth -Omar Felder

I respect Queen Elizabeth for how she used her independence to maintain her power over England. As a result, dukes and earls have writtin poems and such to her in sympathetic tones because she didn't commit. As a woman, she knew what the consequences would be had she concieved a child (male or female). Her strategy and grace was so influential to the people at the time, that we to this very day, study her in colleges.

Week 3 Faerie Queen

This story has many Christian/Catholic undertones as we knew it hitherto however, Canto 4 reflects the Catholic religion in the way of the Seven Deadly Sins compared with the Six Vices -- many of which overlap each other. Perhaps, in light of reformation and religious movements and change going on during Spenser's time, he was attempting to make an argument for Catholicism. Interestingly enough though, Spenser was known for opposing some of the Catholic views -- so his reason for reflecting the seven sins is ambiguous.

Aside from religion, an interesting tactic of Spenser's in the Faerie Queene is using similar character names for different characters -- this causes confusion in the mind's of the reader, which Spenser probably meant to do on purpose since confusion, especially regarding identity, is evident throughout all six cantos so far. The names coincide, and the appearances do as the characters' appearances are altered to stir confusion and mishap. (ex-when Redcrosse finds who he thinks is Una in bed with another man). The characters of Sans-foy and Sanjoy are interchangeable names, adding to further confusion. Character confusion, identity and appearance wise, is a theme throughout the tale.

Week 3-The Faerie Queene

The main point of Cantos iv, v, vi is obviously the Palace of Pride. The Palace itself conveys alot about what Spenser is trying to say about the political nature of England at the time. The description of the Palace reminded me if the Vatican. It is a very elaborate and beautiful place. There are red and purple drapings and many things coated in gold, these colors are often used as part of the Cardinals and Popes robes. There are also many people in the Palace that are just as corrupt as Queen Pride. Spenser also points out that it is very easy to enter the palace of pride but hard to get out, the example of that being the thousands of people in the dungeon that the dwarf finds who were overcome by sin. Another is that on the outside courtliness is seen as righteous and just but underneath all anyone is doing is looking out for their own well being and will commit sins to help themselves.

Then there is Una who while this is happing ends up in the forest taking refuge with nymphs and satyrs. There is a scene in the story when Spenser describes her teaching the creatures about goodness and light and my first thought was this scene made me think of Una as a missionary. Because she is in a "savage" place surrounded by satrys that dont know the Light, or Christianity, yet. But I dont know the extent of how missionary work Protestanism was doing at that time because the religion itself had not been around for very long. But then afterwards I thought that tying Una to being a missionary might not be correct because Spenser already has several political points he is trying to convey in The Faerie Queene and that adding in the importance of missionary work would be too much.

Week 3-The Faerie Queene

I have to admit the Faerie Queene is a difficult text to get through. One thing that drove me nuts about the story was the way that Spenser presents his characters. He draws out these long descriptions of them and waits for quite a few stanzas or even Cantos to tell us what their names are or who they really are. For example, he describes Sans foy’s lady within Canto 2.13, but does not tell us she is Fidessa until Canto 2.26. I felt like it made the text so much more difficult on which he was talking about when he wasn’t giving us a name. This may tie into the fact that most of the story starts off with a lot of deceitful and false people. The long introductions might be used to further emphasize the confusion on what is real and what is false.

            Spenser also spends a great deal on the women within the story. We talked a lot in class about how most of the women were shown as villains such as the dragon and Duessa, but Una is shown as such a weak and helpless person within the story. He portrays her as innocent and alone, looking for her knight. I feel as though Una has some power within the story. She is the one pushing Redcrosse on during his fight with Error and even after Redcrosse leaves she still tries to pursue and find him. If Spenser really didn’t want her to have any power, he could have left her to stay with the hermit. This could possible tie into Spenser’s political allegory to the story. Queen Elizabeth was innocent and powerful at the same time, being able to rule England. He then contrasts this possibility by throwing the lion into the story. To me the lion would symbolize a king like figure that is helping out Una and it seems like Spenser is trying to say that Elizabeth needs a king in order to run England.

            I do also feel like Redcrosse is a little stupid. Spenser describes him as both an experienced knight but an inexperienced one at the same time. He is suppose to be protecting Una, but leads her right into the Den of Errors after the dwarf tries to tell him that he shouldn’t go in. Then he stops the advances made by Una realizing that they may not be true and then right after believes that she is with someone else at the hermit’s house. He leaves in fury and immediately takes Duessa not even thinking that she may be too good to be true. When he meets the tree that was tricked by Duessa, he doesn’t even think that maybe Fidessa could be Duessa even after she faints. This ties back into when we said in class that Spenser writes in a 12-year-old boy manner. I feel like Redcrosse is the 12-year-old boy falling for all of the tricks. 

Week 3 - IYI: Women in the Renaissance

"IYI" stands for If You're Interested.* I'll post these when I can, as questions about specific topics come up in class. Feel free to suggest topics or themes for future IYIs. As the acronym implies, all of this is optional reading.

Several of you expressed interest in women's history in the Renaissance. If you'd like to read primary texts by and about women's lives and roles in society, you might want to look at Distaves and Dames, edited by Diane Bornstein, and Renaissance Feminism,, edited by Constance Jordan. Our textbook includes a number of female writers, but its choices are idiosyncratic and sometimes tokenistic. Interesting writers we will not be reading as a class include (but are not limited to) Mary Sidney, Countess of Pembroke; Isabella Whitney; Aemilia Lanyer; Elizabeth Cary; and Margaret Cavendish.

It's hard to recommend a single secondary text, since everyone has an angle and underlying politics. If you're interested in social history, you might look at Anne Laurence's Women in England, 1500-1760 or Mary Beth Rose's Women in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Good but problematic literary studies include Dympna Callaghan's Shakespeare Without Women and two collections of essays: Feminist Readings of Early Modern Culture, edited by Traub/Kaplan/Callaghan, and Enclosure Acts, edited by Burt and Archer.

--

*Hat-tip to David Foster Wallace.

Week 2 - Utopia: More to love

Utopia, written by Saint Thomas More, details the account of a fantastic island whose practices were unlike those of any other land. The practices of this society echo sentiments of liberals, communists, feminists, environmentalists and many others. However, it is not the details of this land which motivate my own interest. Rather, I am intrigued by the question of what was More attempting to achieve with this story? I think to take Utopia as merely a fanciful story or a direct representation of More's own ideals would both be too simplistic. I will attempt to provide evidence here as to why I find these to explanations to be lacking.

First, Utopia is a work of fiction and, as such, it is reasonable to start at that point to try to understand it. Yet by looking at the work of Utopia as a whole as well as the manner it was written makes this opinion untenable. Book II of Utopia is what most readers would think of when Utopia is mentioned. It is this second book which details Utopia and its customs. To overlook Book I when trying to interpret More's reason's for writing Utopia would be foolhardy. Book I details the character Thomas More meeting Rapheal Hythloday, the traveler who tells More about Utopia. More and this traveler engage in a discussion which cannot be interpreted as mere fiction, with talk ranging from capital punishment, the place of philosophy in government, and the best way to counsel a king. This dialogue is more in line with works of philosophical discourse than with general fiction. The other fact which makes me hesitant to believe that More meant this to be read as mere fiction is that More wrote Utopia in Latin. Latin is a language of science and education, not one used to appeal to a mass audience. It would not make sense to write a book of fiction in a language no one could read. These two reasons both lead me to believe that More did not intend for Utopia to be read as a typical work of fiction.

The second position which I wish to disprove starts at the other end of the spectrum from the last. Namely that Utopia is an expression of More's own ideals which he wishes to bring about by promoting them. However, by looking at More as a person as well as the manner in which he talks about Utopia would disagree with this premise. Saint Thomas More was a devout Catholic, being killed for his refusal to acknowledge what would become the Anglican Church. As such, I find it hard to believe that More would advocate for a society with married and female priests, divorce, and religious toleration of all faiths. These are just of a few practices of Utopia which seem to jar with the Thomas More depicted by history. The other reason for doubting that the views espoused in Utopia reflect More's own beliefs is how More talks about Utopia. If More was actually supporting the practices of Utopia I would expect him to explain how Utopia developed into what it had become or why it's practices were better than those found in Europe. Instead More's descriptions often border on a satirical tone rather than those of someone attempting to promote their own ideals.

I'm already running long so I'm going to end with a mere statement of my own theory of why More wrote Utopia. This was likely a thought experiment which came from More's own dislike of the current society. More traveled as a diplomat and was able to see aspects of other nations, giving him a broader view of the state of European society than others. By writing Utopia in Latin More was talking to the educated in society, those in the social circles who could do affect public policy. In writing Utopia More was likely attempting to spark more discussion and thought about social issues. More went beyond what he himself thought of as "right" simply to spark greater discussion about policies. This is a simple technique of expressing something more provocative in order to begin discussion which would lead to a correct answer. The End.

Week Two - More's Utopia (aka Borg Collective)

More's deceptively eloquent and thorough portrayal of Utopia was most reminiscent of Plato's Republic. Both More and Plato had very specific theories on developing perfect societies by manifesting rigid and perfectly balanced structures for the individuals of the collective in question. There were distinct differences between the two men; however, the general concepts were harmonious: pristine motives, strong work ethics, consistency, and nobody went to bed hungry. And most importantly, emotion became a non-issue. This was, of course, reasonable to keep the delicate balance of the Republic/Utopia from falling into complete chaos. Everyone knows that emotions like fear, anger, and panic are the leading causes of chaos. For More, if there were too many people in the Utopia, they were moved. If one city ran out of food, another shared with it. If there weren't enough blacksmiths, a young man was expected to gladly give up his dreams of becoming a farmer and take of the post of blacksmith. The Utopia was kept in balance.

Utopia was also reminiscent of Johnathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. Like Swift convinced me that eating babies to sustain economy, feed the poor, and decrease the surplus population was a swell idea, More convinced me to believe all of the crap that I wrote above. There is a reason that these ideas were theories and never came into fruition. All incentives aside, More's theory removed the identity of a person. He almost had me convinced, but a society of drones made me lose my appetite. While it may be counterproductive, an individual should have the right to sit on his ass all day and gamble until he's broke and naked having traded in the shirt off of his back. While More's ideas may not seem as extreme as eating babies, they're close. If I want to be a cross-dressing juggler instead of a blacksmith, then I'm going to be a cross-dressing juggler. If I want to raise my son myself instead of shipping him off to a stranger, you had better keep your damn hands off of him.

Week 2 - Wyatt, Surrey, and More, Esq.

Perhaps this blog entry would be slightly easier if reading poetry didnt make me want to eat an anthrax-powdered donut. But it does. That aside, one thing I noticed immediately about the works of Wyatt and Surrey was the angsty, "woe-is-me" tone both authors implemented. I'm sure if Wyatt and Surrey were around today they would wear very skinny jeans and listen to My Chemical Romance and maybe even wear eyeliner. Many of the poems ("Forget not yet" and "I find no peace" for example) are overdramatic in nature, and try to evoke some sort of passion in the reader, an impossible task considering the rather unispiring words of the authors. "Look at my problems. My life sucks right?" seems to be the general vibe coming from both Wyatt and Surrey. Unfortunately for them, the reader cannot be too sympathetic with their problems. Their problems arent real problems, or at least arent as big of a deal as the authors make them out to be. I did find it interesting, however, that perhaps the most impassioned poem of the bunch was Surrey's "So cruel prison," a romanticized recollection of his childhood. In this poem, a woman was not the source of his passion (which may not even be the right word considering he wasnt very passionate in those poems), but instead, his childhood friend, the nephew of the king. Surrey seems to speak genuinely in this poem, and his glorification of the "bromance" can be tied to a broader social trend entrenched in Renaissance Europe. Oh, I almost forgot to mention that one of the guys (Wyatt maybe?) had a creepy obsession with lutes. What the hell was that about?I have already become long winded. Poetry just gets me all worked up I suppose. Saint Thomas More was, among other things, a very respected court member, devoted Catholic, and a passionate scholar. After he defeated Satan in a game of Chutes and Ladders, he found time to write "Utopia," an incredibly influential tome that undoubtedly left its imprint on history. One thing that I found intriguing about "Utopia" was the almost heretical nature of some of More's principals. As a devout Christian, it is bewildering to see him speak so freely about the topics of divorce and euthanasia, to name a few. It is equally as perplexing to see him speak of people worshipping the moon and the sun, clearly at odds with Catholic doctrine. Another thing i found to be interesting was the communistic lifestyle that Utopians lead, minus the vodka. There was no private ownership in Utopia, with the people seeing themselves as tenants of the land rather than owners. One question out of the many that arise after reading this work is this: why did More write this? What was his overlying goal? Why did I just ask two questions when I clearly indicated that I only meant to ask one? Maybe he was trying to stimulate social awareness and change in his native England. Maybe he was upset at society and was voicing his righteous anger in a satirical way (just in case). Whatever the case, "Utopia" was clearly an important work, both then and now.

Week Two - Utopia: Human Nature

On the subject of “false pleasure”, More includes the absurdity of having lavish things and wanting to be or thinking of oneself as better than others. He begins to discuss people who want to own expensive jewelry and the like, “But if you consider the matter, why should a counterfeit give any less pleasure, when your eyes cannot distinguish it from a real gem? Both should be of equal value to you – as they would be, in fact, to a blind man.” (pg. 563) What intrigues me with this section is More has broken through the role of the narrator and is openly voicing his options on the matter. This section doesn’t seem to have any literal connection to the Utopians, except that they wouldn’t do such things, it is more an example of More looking at the current society with shame. This passage seems to me to be a response to the corruption and falsehoods of England as More sees it.


I couldn’t help but draw a distinction between a text I’m reading for Medieval English Literature. In Ecclesiastical History of the English People Bede does a similar thing in criticizing the society in which he lived. After an abundance of grain, Bede noted that the people began to be terrible to one another and cast their morals aside. “With abundance came an increase in luxury, which was immediately followed by every sort of crime; in particular, cruelty and hatred of truth and love of falsehood increased so much that if anyone among them happened to be milder than the rest…all the rest heaped hatred and missiles upon him, as if he had been the enemy of Britan.” It seems to me that both More and Bede are making a direct assumption that with luxury comes downfall. I think that is a very astute observation of human nature.


To address the question in class if More actually believed what he was writing was possible, I think that isn’t the way to look at Utopia. Instead of a matter of plausibility, I think it was a matter of getting the public to pay attention, or rather the educated to pay attention. I think More believed that by writing of a “perfect” society he would then be able to make people realize that what they lived in was far from perfect. It was a way to spark change, not actually a plan for civilization. Whether or not it worked, who knows.

Week 2 - Wyatt, Surrey, and More

While I read the works of Wyatt and Surrey, I found myself thinking about how ironic it is that their words should live on and not those of the less privileged and illiterate, some of whom I am sure were of much more substance. I do not downplay the prettiness of their verses; certainly they could ribbon their tongues around a thought or two. But I scanned some of their poetry with a bit of an eye roll because, like everyone in class seemed to agree, they did a lot of moaning and weeping. I cannot say that spending time in jail should birth lines about the lovely filth of the cells or the astounding intellectual company of rats, but really, if that was the worst life had to offer for those men then I would rather hear of the best. Of course "So cruel prison how could betide" also mentioned the death of his boyhood friend, but the whole thing really just seemed like a party of verse where Surrey was just trying to gather his most depressing friends for a game of sulking.

As for More, reading "Utopia" encourages me to pick up a biography of the man. I raised the question yesterday of how the work did not seem to line up with what little I know of his life, and I should really like to know more of what drove him to compose it. Certainly many authors are not devoutly in line with all of the things they write, particularly in their fiction (as a working utopian society with real human beings is quite the wild fantasy!), but I would like to separate some pieces of the work that More believed in from those that he made up for whatever reason. Then of course I would like to know those latter reasons, or if that is not possible, at least know more details of his life that would lead me to some conclusions, be they truth or otherwise. I think I will at least spend a fragment of this weekend scraping the internet for information on him.

Week 2 Utopia

More seemed to put it off as Utopia being the greatest in society. Similar to what we said in class as if it was an indirect criticism of England’s government. Every time he made a statement he always had a back up plan to why it would work. For example, he would always say how Utopians would never need anything because they had an excess of everything. Or that their whole day was filled with things to do so there was no time for any sort of corruption going on. In any society this wouldn’t happen. I guess I was just really frustrated on how he seemed to feel like this fantasy society was so perfect and so perfectly planned, but in reality it would never really work.

 A lot of this story seemed to be very ironic. For example, the way Utopians treated gold, pearls, and diamonds. More writes that they use these items to chain up slaves and have no use for money except to pay for mercenaries. We would think of these items as highly valued and something that they would never put on slaves. Shockingly though, More says that when other visitors came to the island wearing all of these things and the people of Utopia mocked them. All of the sudden the visitors started to believe the thinking of the Utopians. In a typical society this wouldn’t have happened, More’s fantasy world is too outlandish.

More also seems to throw in his personal opinions especially when it comes to religion. As a Catholic living in times of religious uncertainty, he speaks of Utopian priests as very high and well-respected individuals. More writes that no other official in Utopia is more honored and that priests are only married to the finest women in Utopia. He also states how the priests are always found during times of war and that the priests have the ability to decrease the amount of bloodshed that occurs during the war. More is indirectly hinting at the fact that religious individuals should be highly valued and what England is trying to do by making its own religion is wrong.

Week 2 Utopia

More was able to create a world that sounds too good to be true. And in fact it is. The main reason why I think More was not able to convince me of his Utopia was the lack of a "back up plan" if you will. He writes about the people wanting to live plainly and not wanting anything lavish in life, but he does not explain what happens if some people were to decide they did not want to wear the same thing as everyone else, according to More they just dont. The citizens of Utopia just evolved like that over time.

Another thing that struck me while reading the story was the lack of emotional attachment of the citizens, espcecially to each other. More says that families have to be split up in order to have the correct ratio of people in the city and country. It is almost impossible to believe that people would willingly do this. More also writes that people sometimes have to colonize outside of Utopia and these citizens have no choice either, and not only are those citizens seperated form the their families but More openly states that the citizens living in colonies are not as respected or well treated as those living on the main island. There was one more example of this "family seperating" that I was a little confused with. More says that if a child does not want to do the same trade as his father than he is paired with another family and adopted into that family. But I am not sure if it is a literal adoption or just that the son does a sort of apprentenceship and becomes close with the family teaching him.

Week 2-Utopia

I felt that Thomas Moore wrote Utopia with an idea in mind of a society that he could only wish to live in. Also with the underlying disappointment in the way of life during that time period. Thomas Moore indirectly criticized the overly wealthy class. In turn, he made the people in Utopia all have the same roles. For example, the gold and silver are not prized positions but instead worn by prisoners. At the same time diamonds and minerals are for children to play with and then grow out of. I felt that Moore did this to underplay the wealth and riches that is normally associated with the upper class. The book was originally written in Latin therefore his audience was the more educated people.
Going back to Moore’s motives for writing this, I found it very obvious that he was writing this with hopes that someone would take on his ideas or even agree with him. It was almost as if he was instructing someone how life should be in contrast to how it was then. There is a response/excuse for any possible criticism towards this “untouchable” society.

Made A Blog

Week 2 - Utopia "Omar Felder"

In the "Military Practices" chapter, More wrote the following, " the utopians are not only troubled but ashamed when their forces gain a bloody victory...but if they overcome the enemy by skill and cunning, they exult mightily...-a victory achieved by strength of understanding (Utopia, 575)". I believe that this piece of knowledge is most effective not only in military settings but also in political settings as well. When politicians have this kind of self-control (or parties for that matter), indirectly, they get what they want in the long run and win more people to their side.

Made an Account

Signed up for Blogger

Week 2 - Sample/Signup post

Please leave a comment here when you have successfully signed up for Blogger. I've sent out invitations to everyone in the class, so please email me if you didn't get one or if you're having trouble signing up.

Your first blog post is due this Friday, September 11, at 11:59 PM. You may write about Utopia, Wyatt's poems, and/or Surrey's poems. Some other blog assignments will give you more direction, but for this one, any reflections on the readings are fine. Let me know if you're having trouble getting started.

When you post, remember to do the following:
- Give your post a subject line with the week number (this is week 2) and the text(s) you're focusing on.
- Label your post with your first name.
- Check back later to see if anyone has commented on your post. I will always comment so you know I've read it. I encourage you to comment on classmates' posts when you find them interesting.