Paradise Lost - Long or Short

Something I found amazing about Paradise Lost is the way that time tends to fall away in the poem. The story seems like it takes all of a few days or a few scenes, but John Milton inflates everything with mounds of astounding metaphors, allusions, word games, illustration and more. Because the story takes place at the beginning of when man and woman were supposed to have been made, there is already a sense of being without time (or sometimes space, for that matter), and yet the sequence into which all of the events fall is very easy to follow once you have gone through the poem in its entirety. But Milton is masterful in the way he wraps his words around the reader and makes he or she dizzy. I have probably never read anything filled with so many rushing images in my life and even though Milton is certainly tough to get through, I think reading Paradise Lost is extremely valuable for anybody who loves literature (and/or wants to be a writer.)

Paradise Lost

"Paradise Lost" is the magnum opus of John Milton, one of the most important English writers and thinkers of his era, and indeed, of all time. The dude was good. "Paradise Lost" was written while he was blind, meaning he probably just blabbed on and on and on while some poor soul had to write all of his words down. Mind you, Milton's blabbering was very well thought out and extremely organized, but I suspect that hardly mattered to the schmoe put in charge of writing it down. And if they dared doze off while Milton was in talk mode, he would zap them with his laser vision. Just because he was blind didnt mean he still didnt have superpowers. As a class, we only looked at three of the twelve books in "Paradise Lost," books 1, 2, and 9. For the most part, Milton talks about the cool shit he did on his spring break and how stupid the sparkly vampires in "Twilight" are (I cant agree enough with this), but he takes a break from this occasionally to talk about the devil and stuff. Perhaps Milton's most intriguing insight comes in Book 1, where Satan rises up to claim lordship over Hell, stating that its "better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven." It is here that we are introduced to the Satanic Logic: Satan believes that his own free intellect is as great as God's will. His mind, he argues, can make its own Hell out of Heaven, or in this case, its own Heaven out of Hell. Emboldened by his own words, Satan grabs his pointy trident, sharpens his pointy horns, and goes to mess shit up in the pointy world of Man. As we see in book 9, Satan does this by entering the body of a serpent and tempting Eve with fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. This in itself is amazing, because I have never heard of anyone ever being tempted by fruit. Maybe if it was a forbidden Snickers bar from the Kiosk of Smartyness or something, but fruit? Please. I could understand if it was in a pie or something, but it wasnt, and even if it was it would probably resemble modern-day fruitcake which no one ever eats, they just mail it to relatives they dont like. Well, whatever. Adam realizes that Eve had been tricked by Satan, and says he would rather die with Eve than live without her. So he eats the fruit too. The two become lustful, engaging in sexual intercourse, before falling into despair. Sounds about right if you ask me. Anyway, the point is, dont do drugs kids.

NOTE: This may be a few mins late, I had some trouble posting it because I'm pretty sure my internet provider is based somewhere in Hell, and Satan loooooves f*****g me over with frequently abysmal internet connection. Cheers!

Paradise Lost

The last selected reading for English 3113W was three books from Milton’s Paradise Lost. I thought this was an important reading to have in a Renaissance Literature class, especially at the end of ours, because it reiterated a lot of what we learned throughout the semester, and served as a kind of semester summary for the class. Many Renaissance texts, especially the ones we have focused on, explore history and past works of literature, where the writers add their own original twists to the concepts and happenings. Paradise Lost does exactly this, calling on stories from the Bible and religious stories, adding in a plot, characters, conversations and more that are all original due to his personal touch.

Milton’s twist on Adam & Eve is very interesting, and makes for an entertaining read. The fact that Satan becomes an actual character interfering with the plot of Eve’s downfall is even comical when really thought about. The fact that he becomes a snake that tempts and convinces Eve into wrongdoing may even be a commentary on Milton’s part regarding religion and beliefs in terms of tales. Adam and Eve feel ashamed at the end of their temptation spell and continue to fight at the end of Book 9, when really Satan is the one at fault and responsible for their downfall.

Paradise Lost

The infamous Paradise Lost, I must admit I was very anxious to read it after all that I have heard about it. I found Milton's perception of Satan to be interesting especially in relation to the bible and how we normally perceive Hell or Satan. Before Milton, Satan was just a force, he wasn't personified at all. Milton shows Satan as an individual with evil motives. In one of his longer speeches, Satan voices that it is " better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven". Basically what he does is put God and himself on the same level, both as rulers of their position. His argument is that there is somehow more freedom in Hell, and that you are able to make it into whatever you like. Overall, a great beginning; I wish we had more time to truly dive into it.

Paradise Lost

One thing that I thought was interesting that we talked about in class was the fact that Milton portrays the devil as the main character that we look at. Milton gives him all the good quotes and the one person we seem to spend the most time talking about is the devil. I really like the lines that the devil has when he tries to say that the other devils can make hell their heaven. I would have never thought about it that way. I also like he fact that Milton was able to connect real life England into Paradise Lost. The Garden of Eden could represent what Milton hopes for England, a paradise that is untouched by everything. Though at the time the Milton was writing the play, England, just like Eden was corrupted by the devil and devilish things.

Paradise Lost : Sympathy for Satan?

What I have found out by reading this work several times, which I find extrememly awkward to admit, is that I actual sympathize with Satan throughout the entire first book. He has been thrown down from Heaven by God, who is basically described by Satan as a closeminded dictator. Obviously, Satan is power-hungry, but that is a quality of man in general. Who is God to say that he is the only one who can ever rule the Heavens? In order for you to understand my thought process, think about what the United States would be like if George Bush was President for an eternity! Furthermore, Satan is jealous of Adam and Eve, and cannot help but to feel the resentment which overcomes him. Having once been in the good graces of God, it is hard for him to witness God favoring mortal creatures over himself. It is almost as if Satan is the child who strives for attention; who gets good grades, does his work, and deserves something for his efforts, but he never receives the recognition he has earned. That being said, the human-like characteristics of Satan are clearly intentional.

FOLLOW MY BLOG @ flowlikemyown-blogspot.com

Paradise Lost

John Milton did not back out of his promise saying that Paradise Lost would be unlike any other poem. Just like he had said he had created no rhyme scheme. At first I expected the poem to be exactly like Genesis but it actually wasn't. He had his own unique variation on the Bible. What makes Paradise Lost even more interesting is that in class we learned that Milton was basically blind when he wrote it. It seems impossible that he was able to dictate most of Paradise Lost. I enjoyed its unique variations from the typical Adam and Eve story. I liked in book 2 when Satan opens up a forum with the other devils. It was a unique perspective to write that some of the devils choose to say that God still had not completely punished them and that they still had hope. I also like when the devils said that they wanted to make Hell mimic Heaven. When you think of the two, they are the exact opposite, one firey and burning and the other imagined to blue skies and clouds. They could never be the same.

Katherine Phillips - A Woman in a Sea of Men

Although I was happy that we finally got to another female writer along with Queen Elizabeth and Wroth, I was kind of disappointed with Katherine Phillips. I much preferred writers like Marlowe and Donne and to be honest, I really did not like her style. Maybe it's my own personal gripe, but I get so bored of poetry that constantly rhymes so cleanly and neatly and bounces like a song. I did like some of her images, especially the one where her baby boy is a fallen rosebud, but I did not see the wonder I found in some of our other poets. I was certainly happy to see some semblance of women's work dug up, but I was sad to see that there wasn't more. I know it makes sense, since women still hadn't a fraction of the opportunities that men had, but even so. I was hoping to see a woman burst out of our crowd of men this semester and grab my heart, but it didn't really happen. At least I can be thrilled that there are a trillion women writers now, but it would have been nice to see a wider breadth of perspective during that time frame. Ho hum.

And then there is Milton. Oh boy does he have a word to say about everything...

What a Marvel!

Damn, I keep forgetting to do this! :( I know I'm about 12 hours late, but I'll post anyway. I think I liked the idea that Marvell had a smaller body of work and was only published after his death, but nonetheless had a large impact upon literature. His literary persona seems humble in this way (though of course I do not know what he was like as a person) and it made me happy for his eventual success. I also really enjoyed the fact that (as the book noted), he covered a range of forms, rather than recomposing the same sort of thing time and again. It completely makes up for having a smaller body of work, and promises that if he had written more it probably would have been just as rich and various. I also liked that he was friends with one of the most prolific greats (Milton) and although he was not seeking to be the next great epic poet, he was still confident enough in his abilities to write. Furthermore, he did not try to put himself out there in the way that other writers did (though of course his point in history was not so favorable for that sort of thing), but he stilled garnered the respect that he deserved. This alone makes me want to read more of him... oh, and the fact that his work is gorgeous.

The Winter's Tale

I thought instead of talking about The Broken Heart, I would take this blog post to discuss the Winter's Tale - the individual reading of mine. The Winter's Tale consisted of some very interesting characters - some of Shakespeare's most memorable. Leontes, though an interest character, is a very unrealistic character. Though a king, Shakespeare did not construct him to be a very strong authority figure. Instead, he gave into emotions, rather than logic and reasoning. This can be related to Richard III in that these high authority figures are driven by emotions and desires rather than what will better their citizens and kingdom.  Leontes is also very irrational figure, threatening to kill his best friend due to a stretched assumption.  What is most interesting about this character is how Leontes is a king, a figure who was supposed to embody masculinity at the time, yet he served the more bodily elements, than the ones of the mind, which was not as accepted for men of the time. Men were supposed to be of the mind, and women were of the body - perhaps this is a commentary on Shakespeare's part, either critiquing the tight social norms of the time, or opening others minds to the possibilities of being able to be either bodily or of the mind.

Marvell is Marvelous

I enjoyed Marvell poems, they were a good change of pace. A lot of his poetry was cute and romantic. I like the dialogue between the soul and body and how the two coexist with one another. The body has all this pain because of the soul and vice versa. Its just an ongoing battle between the two. The poems about the mower were also good, each one brought up a new story of Damon and Juliana. The Horation Ode was a unique one to put into the collection because all of the other poems were about love. I thought it was a strange choice. Its about Oliver Cromwell but did Marvell work for him or was Cromwell's return that most writers decided to write about it. I liked how Marvell wrote about Bermuda but in the footnotes it says that he never even went to Bermuda, but the guy he was working for did. Its weird to write about a place that you have never been to.

Andrew Marvell

My favorite of Marvell's poems was definitely a " Dialogue Between the Soul and Body". The idea that the mind and the body are slaves to each other was a very interesting thought. It makes you question Marvell's perception of appearance. The soul and the body go back and forth as if to see who will win. Technically neither would win because they are both trapped within each other. When dealing with a relationship between a man and a woman, the body eventually gets in the way because it is not everlasting. This idea is very similar to his poem " To His Coy Mistress" where he discusses the woman's body becoming old and essentially not attractive anymore ( very depressing/appalling way to think).

Good Ol' Herbie

There is no denying that George Herbert was a good guy. As a priest, he was noted for his unfailing care for his parishoners, bringing sacraments to the ill, feeding the hungry, and clothing the poor. But the dude wrote poetry. Not just any kind of poetry, either. Metaphysical poetry. The type that you and I (well, perhaps just me) are too dumb to understand. The type that makes it seem like he and God are BFFs and writing letters to each other about how cool they are. "God, you are the coolest. You are the man. I mean THE man." says Herbert. And God says, "You know I dont like poetry, right George?" Herbert's typical rhyme scheme varies from the simple to the slightly complex. His word choice is fairly simple, preferring to write so we, the reader, might understand what the hell he's talking about. Which we dont (again, probably just me). He's like the 17th century poetic equivalent of Ernest Hemingway in his simplicity, except Herbert doesnt seem to care all that much for old men or the seas they fish on. There is no question as to what he DID care for: the divine. Herbert was arguably the most infatuated with the divine of all the 17th century poets. After all, he was a priest, dammit. Herbert was also an innovator of some sorts, playing with what a poem does visually as opposed to just words. His poem "The Altar" looks like - you guessed it - an altar! Damn, thats creative!

George Herbert

While reading Herbert, I first found him to be dry and really hard to get through. But when we discussed him in class, I had a bit of a change of heart. His style of writing is very to the point, which I like. I also liked how he didn't make any excuses for the way he viewed the world. He is religious, but also pragmatic in a sense. I appreciate that, and I have to admit he has grown on me. "Jordan 1" was by far my favorite poem. Herbert comments on a lot of what I believe about poetry. A lot of the time it comes off as false imagery just for the sake of writing a poem. That being said, I think the only complaint that remains for Herbert is the loads of biblical references he alludes to in his writing. I think if you look beyond that, his writing is very beautiful, and to the point.

Herbert

The only thoughts in my mind while reading Herbert were "you'll be done reading it soon." Though Redemption is pretty entertaining and bearable, the rest of his poems are boring and in my opinion, redundant. He repeats many of his ideas and messages in many of his poems, making them unoriginal to a certain extent. He throws his religion at the reader, limiting the definition of a good religious follower, since he deems that there are so many ways to be a poor follower. Also, his writing is boring, in my finding. His tone is usually pompous and arrogant, as if trying to guide people into HIS way.

George Herbert

I have to say I also liked Herbert. His writing and rhyming style are simple but at the same time his poems are full of metaphors. So in a way makes up for the simplistic nature of the poem by giving the reader something to think about. Personally I would rather read a poem that sounds simple to the ear but has a lot of intrinsic meaning than a poem with complicated wording that has the meaning right on the surface. Even though a modern reader might have trouble deciphering the meanings unless they really knew their history of the 1600s, for example when in "Jordan" its says "false hair" the reader would have to know it meant a wig which in turn leads to wealthy people wear wigs which means vanity and embellishement and that wigs were used to cover up things on a person that wasnt so nice. So as you can see two words in a poem can really have a snowball effect and if the reader dosent understand the first "level" of the meaning they miss out on all the subsequent ones. I know a lot of people probably think its really cheesy but I even like how Herbert made a few of his peoms into the objects that were the title of the poem itself such as "The Alter" and "Easter Wings".

George Herbert

I enjoyed "Redemption", I thought the comparison between Christ's self sacrifice and the renegotiation of a lease to work well, especially by putting it into middle class terms. "In cities, theaters, gardens, parks, and courts: t length I heard a ragged noise and mirth" (Herbert, 1607) I took this line to be encompassing religion in our everyday life.
The more I read Jordan (1), the more I enjoy it. When first reading it, I must admit, I was painfully confused however, then the light switch went on. Then again that is how I feel about most poetry. This poem bringing back the idea of praising God and being true to God is what is most important. George Herbert discusses what a true, real poet is. That poet is speaking simply, and justifying their own methods.

George Herbert - An Okay Dude

Well, it appears as if I've taken a liking to your arch-nemesis, Sarah. Being a writer myself, I certainly appreciate Herbert's low tolerance for bullsh*t. His writing reflects his expectations of writers: writing with a purpose, writing concisely. His rhyme scheme is like his vocabulary: simple. His writing is, however, guilty of being ladened down with metaphors. (See: "The Bunch of Grapes"...one giant tangle of metaphors.) Yet, this would only be construed as unclear to contemporary readers as Herbert's audience was privy to the sorts of Bible references sprinkled about Herbert's work. I was also quite amused by the physical shape "The Alter" and "Easter Wings" took. Adorable. My respect for him as a writer comes specifically from reading "Jordan (1)" and "Jordan (2)." In both of the poems, Herbert tells us exactly what he thinks of the fluff writers of his time. While I'm not a huge fan of the content of his work (See: Anglican Church, See Also: Christianity), I can appreciate how frustrating it must have been to have been surrounded by fluff writers and copy cats producing empty work without sustenance or purpose to entertain the masses. While his writing is simple, he communicates this idea in a most eloquent and clever manners. (See: false hair, See Also: winding stair and painted chair; pg. 1611).

Also, I couldn't really find the connection between the beginning of Jourdan (2) and the beginning of Act III, Scene I of Jonson's Volpone...must've missed something.

Of Superstition by Sir Francis Bacon n' Eggs (I had to)

Ya' got me! I was so convinced Bacon was giving the godless crew props, but that crafty Devil was merely using us in a "lesser-of-the-two-evils" example! Perhaps I would have realized that ahead of time if I had read the very first line more carefully: "It were better to have no opinion of God at all than that such an opinion as is unworthy of him." I suppose you read things the way you want them to be. I respect his opinion though. Bacon's sticking to his guns. If you're going to believe in my god, do it right, or don't do it at all. I respect that. My favorite part has got to be the listing. "The causes of Superstition are: etc etc etc" I'll spare you the list but it's funny.

Of Marriage and Single Life...well, Bacon lost me there. I'm not a fan of marriage...at all, so when I read "Chaste women are often proud and froward as presuming upon the merit of their chastity," Let us take note that "froward" here means 'ill-tempered', I was far from amused. Then again, I'm a contemporary woman...maybe unmarried 17th century women were proud and ill-tempered.

Sir Francis Bacon

I thought Bacon had a very interesting view on marraige. Overall his view of it comes across as negative. Saying that single men are much more productive in society because they are not bogged down by family responsibilities. But of course readers would have to look at the flip side of this view because if men were to do as Bacon said to than how would society function without anyone getting married and having children? Bacon says that getting married makes a man "soft" which it seems he dosent neccesarily see as a bad thing. Maybe Bacon means that men should wait until they are a bit older to get married that way they can achieve things while they are yougn and energetic, such things as political achievments and such things as being a soldier as well. Being a soldier who is single has some obvious benefits, you are able to be more "fierce" in battle because you do not have to worry about leaving behind a wife and children to take care of themselves if you die. Possibly Bacon thinks that getting married slightly older would be better for society that way more things would get done but society itself would still be able to function because the population would be steady. Needles to say that Bacon does not take into account what the young women would feel being made to marry older men as is evident in a quote about them "women are young mens mistresses, companions of middle age, and old men nurses."

Sir Francis Bacon

My favorite piece that we read from Sir Francis Bacon was "Of Studies."  I liked the piece because it just explained that your shouldn't overwhelm yourself with studying too much because it isn't worth it. You should enjoy what your are learning because it will make you a better person, someone that is more knowledgeable than you were before. I loved the line, "Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe and take for granted, nor to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider." I liked it so much because he is basically saying that books should be pondered on and that people should discuss what they liked about it and what they disliked. There is no point in reading something if you don't like it or if you don't think about it. I like how he said that some books should be chewed and digested and others you should just taste. Sometimes somethings aren't worth it to be read in full but if you give yourself an opportunity to read a little bit of it, your that much better for it. 

Volpone

One of the most profound and disturbing scenes in Volpone is that attemted seduction/rape scene with Celia after Volpone sings her that really creepy song and tries to buy her off with teasures. Around this time, in scene 3.7 lines 133-138, Celia cries out about how shameful it is that a man could trade and use his wife for greed. This scene shows that love which is usually argued to be the most important thing in the world is now worth less than money and therefore now it has made the men in this play dishonorable. This is of course after the scene where Corvino threatens Celia to do what he says or he will "grow violent" and she still refuses him. So this is when the reader feels very much sympathy towards poor Celia because she is threatened by two different men in as little as two pages.

Vol-pwn-ed

Volpone, by Ben Jonson, is a comedy about a Venetian gentleman who pwns the crap out of Voltore, Corbaccio, and Corvino, the seekers of his fortune. He's all like "BOOM HEADSHOT!" and Voltore and Co. are all like "wtf n00b hax0rz," since Volpone makes them believe that each one is named in his will while getting Corbaccio to disinherit his son in favor of Volpone. Volpone's 1337 skillz lead him to disguising himself in order to see Celia, the very beautiful wife of Corvino. Mosca, Volpone's assistant guy dude man, tells Corvino that Volpone needs to pwn Celia in order to revive himself, and Corvino, for some reason, agrees. "Why, yes you may have foreign relations with my wife, pip pip, what?" he says. Volpone tries to seduce Celia with flowery rhetoric and the promise of luxury, but when she knocks him back, Volpone tries to rape her. Heavy stuff for a comedy, right? This is interesting as it shows that Volpone, for all his supposed cunning, has no real power over others other than money. But, as he finds out, not everyone can be easily bought off. Volpone is accused of attempted rape by Bonario, who was lurking in the shadows watching Volpone, and who stops Volpone from pwning Celia. Volpone and Mosca, however, get off at least initially, and are only brought down when they turn on each other and begin team-killing, which makes Volpone rage quit from the play. The interesting thing about the conclusion is that there is no real sense of justice. Bonario gets and inheritence that he doesnt want, Corvino is sentenced to public humiliation, Celia is sent back as a tainted object to her father...the suffering is almost equal on all sides. But I suppose this is more based in reality than not. Fairy tale endings dont always happen in real life, and many times justice is not served as it is supposed to.

Johnson's Volpone

I think one of my favorite things about Volpone was the fact that almost none of the characters were likable. There was no happy ending in the traditional sense and everyone was out to screw everybody else. I thought that although Johnson was probably trying to make a point about society and people, his rotten losers made the play so outrageous that it was hilarious. I loved that after suspending disbelief, we could watch Volpone and Mosca yank everyone into his schemes, make enormous fools of everybody, and then drop the whole pile of garbage upon themselves in a splendid shower. I liked that the play did not really try to play with my emotions and make me feel self-conscious, unlike some of the articles that I read said of Twelfth Night. The kind of comedy that just stands on its own and makes the audience without getting itself involved in little old me is nice. That is not to say that there is no value in having attention drawn to oneself, but this play both offered a bold message and a huge laugh at the same time, thus having little need for me but to watch.

Volpone

The character Volpone raises interesting questions about greed and arrogance. He and Mosca deceive the other characters in the play into giving him lavish gifts and sweet talking him. Though they get great entertainment out of it, it is alarming just how ridiculous Volpone loves every moment of it, and it no doubt sharpens his ego. His pride and his greed become more and more excessive with every person he tricks. It actually raises the question of how aggressive and demanding Volpone would have been while trying to seduce Celia, had his ego not been enlarged. The scene where he is almost raping Celia proves how pathetic a man Volpone actually is, ironically though the play's namesake, he is one of the weakest more despicable characters in the play.

Volpone

When reading this play, it is hard not to question Ben Johnsons’s motives. What on earth was he thinking before creating this? Don’t get me wrong; the overall idea surrounding the play is utterly hilarious. I found Johnson to be extremely clever with each character resembling an animal. Each animal encompasses what the characters motives and position in the play. Volpone and Mosca have a somewhat sick relationship consisting of greed and disloyalty. This is apparent just from the mere fact that Mosca’s animal character is a fly. I didn’t find the ending to be shocking at all, it was very obvious that Mosca and Volpone’s secret ponzi scheme would have to meet it’s demise. Of course not without one of them thinking their master plan had worked. Towards the end Mosca had the keys in his possession and all the money. He essentially stole everything right from under Volpone. The play obviously can’t end this way. Therefore, Bonario to the rescue! Bonario is in turn given the inheritance, which doesn’t mean a whole lot to him and Volpone is sent away to a syphilis hospital while Mosca is put in the galleys.

Volpone - Well, this one is just filled with rainbows and sunshine!

I like Jonson. He appeals to my cynical tendencies. Volpone is one of those works where everybody just gets screwed over. Mosca's condemned to life as a galley slave, Volpone is sent to prison, Voltore is disbarred, Corbaccio's property is seized, Corvino is publically humiliated, and Celia...well, good luck, Hon. I like this because it's honest. Volpone is a friendly little reminder that reality does not entail a hero's happy ending, a villain's comeuppance, or a lesson learned. It is human nature to be selfish, to be greedy, to look after one's self. It's humanity's base, primitive origin. Only a nearly negligible percentage of individuals have sought to adopt pristine motives in life and they are almost always abused/taken advantage of by the less than pristine crowd. Jonson knows we know this; thus, he's not going to bullsh*t us with a happy ending. I appreciate honesty, even in the literature I read...especially in the literature I read.

As far as my opinion of the individual characters, I found myself favoring Volpone, not because he is of any higher moral standing than any of the other characters, but because of the way he played with the other characters. Not that I condone that type of behavior, but I believe that between immoral and cunning or immoral and thick, immoral and cunning is the lesser of the two evils. Besides, if you're going to abandon logic for the sake of money, then you deserve whatever comes your way. While I do commend his toying with greedy fools, I feel I must stress my disdain for Volpone. He is, no doubt, a weasel. It becomes unmistakably clear just how sniveling a coward he is in the scene between him and Celia. Had Bonario not burst out from behind the curtain to save her, I still seriously doubt Volpone would have had it in him to rape Celia. He spends so much time trying to convince her to sleep with him because he knows that he has a much higher chance of manipulating her mentally than he does of manipulating her physically.

And just a side note: that song was one of the creepiest passages I have ever read! I pictured the whole thing and it was so disturbing and pathetic and lecherous all at once. That's all I have to say about that.

Volpone

For this play I don't see how anyone could sympathize with any of the characters. At first I just thought that Mosca and Volpone were the only ones to blame since they were the ones doing all of the conning but looking back at it, everyone deserves a little bit of the blame. All of the possibly heirs are only in it for the money so they deserve everything they got, especially Corvino. It is disgusting how he would just put forth his wife against her wishes just for the money even though it would mean that Volpone lives. The only way he would have even gotten the money is if Volpone died. 

I do feel as though Volpone wasn't as good as Mosca was at conning people. Volpone seemed to be the one coming up with the initial cons, but Mosca made sure that they went according to plan. Volpone would be the one sitting in bed pretending to be sick while Mosca was the on running around telling all of the lies. Without Mosca, Volpone would have nothing. I think in the end, Mosca realizes this so cons Volpone into giving him the house.

The only person in this whole play that you can somewhat sympathize with is Bonario. He truly gets duped by Mosca into believing that his father is going to take away his inheritance. This could be something believable except for the fact that Mosca tells Bonario that he tells lies all the time. Bonario tries to be the savior and saves Celia and then in the end winds up being accused of being her lover and lying about the whole thing. In the end though, the truth does come out. This play shows just about everything that people will do for greed and money. 

Donne

I have to say Donne turned out to be one of the poets I liked better. Although he can be a bit simple and too "sing-song", his poems are a nice breather after some of the more complicated authos we have been reading. Donne often has what I call the "awwww" factor. Some of his works can be very romantic so that after you read a particular line it makes the reader go "awwww". I also foudn Donneto be more genuine than the other poets, especially Shakespeare who sometimes I am not sure if he is mocking what he is writing about or not. I also found his fascination with souls both endearing and entertaining. He can go in one of his poems, for example "The Ecstasy", from talking about soul mates and how him and the women he is writing about are the only ones for each other, to souls combining or what I guess you would call "soul sex" to finally in the second to last stanza to finally lets have sex physically. I guess I find this amusing because slowly to find out where Donnes mind has really been all along. Even though some of Donne's poems can get a little raunchy they are still fun to read because it reminds me that people in the 16th century were amused just as much as we are by these types of poems.

John Donne-zo

There comes a time during every week, usually in the wee saturday hours when i stumble up to bed after a night of drunken debauchery, where I pause, blink stupidly, and think to myself "Oh crap, I forgot to do my blog post again." And then i pass out. I was getting pretty good at forgetting to do them, a professional forgetter I daresay. Thats why tonight is one for the ages, folks. I actually remembered. I even wrote BLOG in big letters on my hand so I wouldnt forget. Thats dedication right there. Unfortunately, I drove all the way home only to realize I dont have my english book. *Insert explative here* While my actions make me want to harm small, furry woodland creatures, its nothing compared to poetry, which makes me want to harm small, furry woodland John Donnes. Donne was a master of metaphysical poetry, but infused his poetry with intellect and wit, weaving paradoxes, puns and analogies into often ironic pieces on human nature and on holy proceedings. His style remains remarkably consistent - while his subject matter may change from his earlier works to his later works, his keen literary sense and passion do not. He also seems to be very genuine in his works, speaking from the heart that is different from many of his contemporaries. I have different levels of dislike for poetry, kinda like the 9 circles of Hell in Dante's "Inferno," except for poets. I definately do not dislike Donne as much as, say, those weepy teenage girls Surrey and Wyatt. Those whiny bastards deserve to be in the lowest circles of literary Hell. Their poems are malicious crimes against humanity, and i better stop talking or else i might make an irrational decision and punch my computer. Although that might be a good thing since the computer at my house has the top-of-the-line Windows 98 currently installed. Whatever, Donne gets a pass in my book as being pretty good...for a poet.

Not Done with Donne

Okay, I apologize for the cheesy pun. But then again in "A Hymn to God the Father," Donne supposedly makes puns on his own name and that of wife, so I suppose a bit of it here and there can be healthy. In any case, I can't help myself after reading Donne's work; I think he is my favorite writer that we have read thus far. I really liked the nearness his earlier works had to the later ones, despite the fact that they seem shockingly contrasting at first read. The love poetry has the mirth of youth, but has the same breed of passion as the holy work. I feel like Donne is someone that I would have liked to meet to see the person behind this whirlpool of bizarre and lovely images and these bursts of frantic wit and humanity. I guess that's the one letdown of liking this cast of authors - everyone is dead.
Donne's work makes me look forward to reading his contemporaries. I already looked ahead to a couple of them and like what I see. I am also excited to see the authors in a larger scheme once I have finished this class, because I saw a continuity in the way the 16th Century played out in literature, and if Donne is an example of what is to come then I think I will have a lot of fun with it.

John Donne, Love Sonnets

I found the love sonnets to be more interesting than the holy sonnets, mostly because some of the sexual innuendos were slightly comical. He comes across as a hopeless Romantic longing for love. For example in the sonnet title " Song", he says, " O how feeble is man's power, that if good fortune fall, Cannot add another hour, Nor a lost hour recall!" ( pg. 1269). Donne speaks of his longing for more time with his love. In the beginning of this sonnet he also says that he does not want to go for "weariness of thee". In " Air and Angels", he compares the woman who is his love to be the angel, and himself to be the air. The air being slightly less pure than the angel.

Week 8 (I think?): Donne

What I found most interesting about Donne was the vast difference between his early poetry and later poetry. The early poems focus on attaining a pure, true love (lust included) while the later focus on his relationship with God. Although these two subjects seem to be very separate, I think the progression of them and the way Donne writes them connects these two periods very well. His style of writing doesn't change, just the topic he is writing about. In fact, I think that his unique way of looking at a subject is what marks Donne as such a great poet.

I think that it is very telling that Donne first writes about sex and romance, but in a spiritual way then his writing progresses to religion and God. His private writings are all self deprecating, almost as if these writings are a direct response to his younger writings. In this way they are connected.

I really liked Donne's poetry more so than any of the other poets we've read so far. He is funny, clever, and actually genuine in his writing it seems. I don't think he was writing just for the sake of writing a love sonnet or because that was what was "cool" at the time, or even writing about God because he wanted to preach. I got a sense that he was really writing from his heart. That gains him a lot of respect as a poet in my opinion. Go Donne!

Donne

The difference between Donne's meditations and his sonnets is very great. The sonnets mostly encapsulate love and sweet, aesthetic images while the meditations talk of death and sickness, and God as well. While Donne is a beautiful poet who created rich sonnets, I feel that it is a strong point for a poet to also be able to write other literary works and to touch on other subjects and themes. Donne does this and proves he is capable of an array of genres and thematics. These kinds of preaching works indicate that Donne was probably very elegant in his sermons, as his words are crafted with care. It is always refreshing to catch a glimpse of all the areas that a writer was talented in.

Donne's Poetry

John Donne has a very unique writing style in a sense that he went from writing poems about love, sex, and women to writing very serious religious poems and speeches. He speaks highly of the soul and loving someone not for their beauty but for their mind. This was something different than most of the poets we have read. Normally they are going on and on about the physical attributes of women but Donne, talks about them in a metaphorical sense which allowed him to put in subtle sexual undertones to his first set of poetry. 

Donne goes from these very distinct love poems to very serious religious poems in which he compares himself to god. I feel like most of these poems were written after his wife died and that he became very serious after this. Maybe he blames himself for his wife's death considering she died during childbirth and he is trying to repent his sins with god within his poems. 

I really like the analogies that he used in Meditation 17. He showed that life isn't all about one person, but that each person is part of a whole and when something happens to that one person everyone is affected. He compares this by saying things like, "no man is an island, every man is a piece of the continent." Its like saying there is no "I" in "Team" and you have to work together in an effort to get what you want. 

twelfth night

In this play there is the very interesting topic of gender and identity confusion. Both by the characters disguising there gender, like Viola and those who think they are falling in love with people that they think are someone else like Orisono and Olivia. I like how Shakespeare used this intersting plot twist for a comical reason. Like Orisino who falls in and out of love so fast he dosent even really know the true gender of the person he is infatuated with is, he also just seems to care about being in love not whom he is love with. Also Shakespeare could have easily made Viola get a job as a ladys maid of another profession that would not require her to cross dress. But thankfully Shakerspeare is able to create a comedic play out of this situations.

End of Twelfth Night

The end of Twelfth Night ends with not only the main characters all marrying and being happy and peaceful in the end, but it ends on such a note that Shakespeare himself is sending a message of thanks and gratitude to his audience, with Feste's song/speech. The last verse of it reads: "But that's all one, our play is done, / And we'll strive to please you every day" (5.1.403-404). It is almost as if Shakespeare himself is coming forth in the stage, pleading with the audience to acknowledge that he has made this play and ending for their pleasure. It appears almost as an advertisement tactic so that audiences of the time would come back to see his other plays - since he strives to please them every day. This ending always strikes me because it just proves that even back then writers and playwrights kept money and success in mind, knowing that their works would be performed or read by large audiences at some point. Also, with the end of everybody being happy, Shakespeare adds that aforementioned verse, and it kind of serves as a way of telling the audience that he shaped that ending for everyone to be happy, but this kind of happiness and peace does not come at the end of most things. It is almost like he is mocking perpetual happiness, and declaring that the only happiness you can find like that is in fiction.

On the Twelfth Night of Tomfoolery

Although all of the characters in Twelfth Night were rich, the one I was most intrigued by was Feste. I felt like I wanted to read more of Shakespeare (since I have had limited experience with his drama) because as Sarah noted in class, the man alone is a figure to watch. I also loved that although many of the others in the play were highly intellegent (Maria, Viola), Feste seemed to me to be the most witty and cunning. I loved the scene where he kept insisting that Olivia was the fool and that she was the one that ought to be taken away. His sense of humor was cynical but jovial and I loved the coupling. I also liked that he had an allegiance to nobody but himself and in that way could be the most honest character.
Because I liked Feste the most, I really wanted to write my second paper around criticism on his role, but interestingly enough there was very little written about him. I couldn't help but wonder why, but it made me want to write a paper about him myself. I guess to many people his character wasn't interesting beyond foolery and perhaps they read little depth into his role. I cannot say why for sure, but I personally thought he was very significant in driving the play forward (not to mention his dualistic creepy/hilarious role as Sir Topas) and deserved more attention.

Edward II

Shakespeare’s dislike towards Puritans becomes frighteningly apparent during the Malvolio tower seen near the end. Malvolio is locked in a dark chamber and Feste comes to see him. Feste masks himself as Sir Topas and tricks Malvolio. Malvolio is a Puritan and is being treated questionably throughout this last scene. The reason for this is because the Puritan’s were against the theater and everything it stood for. Mavolio’s character states his plans for revenge against the “whole pack of you” at the ending of the play. At the same time Feste is given the last word. It was a song deliberately favoring the theatre and the appeal to the audience, making sure they were pleased with the show. I found this to be a very interesting way to end a play especially this one. The fact that Feste is a clown reinstates this idea of the theatre and what it means to Shakespeare.

12th Night

This was actually the third time I have had to read 12^th Night, but I actually didn’t mind it. I find it to be better than having to read Romeo and Juliet year after year. The comedy aspect of it is decent. I love the way Shakespeare makes it seem so easy that all of the characters fall for his tricks. I love how immediately Olivia falls in love with Cesario, and no one has a clue until Sebastian walks in that Cesario is really Viola. Was Viola that convincing as a man?

            Sebastian has the best life throughout this whole play. He basically does nothing and receives everything in return. First, his ship is wrecked. His sister is forced into cross-dressing and has to play a servant, while he tends to just bump into Antonio who magically falls in love with him. Antonio not only risks his life to bring Sebastian to Orsino’s court but even hands out money to him. Must be nice for Sebastian considering he just met the guy. Then, he basically wins the lotto when Olivia immediately marries him after he meets her for the first time. I feel as though Shakespeare may have given men preferential treatment while writing this play. Viola is a woman so she has to dress as a man to be safe in a new place, while her brother just has to wash up on shore. The comedy is farfetched, but it definitely drew audiences. 

Week 6 Sonnet

The Anti-Sonnet

Tonight I really loathe writing sonnets
While all my friends are out I'm stuck here.
I can't think of what to write upon it.
But if only the words would just appear.

This sonnet is so anti-creative.
It is an abomination of art.
It makes anyone feel vegitative.
It should have remained an act of the heart.

This process is totally purposeless.
I can't seem to get it perfectly right.
I really don't care if it's hit or miss.
Why can't I go out on this Friday night?

Yet I had a lot of fun doing this.
It really became a work of sheer bliss.



*Note to readers: I never claimed to be a writer. - G.O *

Assignment 6: The Sonnet

So this is the sonnet for the assignment for week 6.

To Thee I Sing A Song Of Utmost Praise
Flower Who Blossoms So Purely In Red
Each Day You Rise With Mornings Strong Bright Rays
Your Thorns of Green Protect Your Sacred Bed

I Walk Along Garden Pathways of Green
The Nest In Which Your Crimson Flower Blooms
Your Smell Is Fragrant of Oceans Marine
It Reminds Me of seaside cottage rooms

But to your sweet beauty I must confess
Despite how the prince truly holds your heart
How it is I am put into distress
When in my company you don’t take part

Rose I Dote Upon Thee With Bated Breath
Here I Will Remain Until My Cold DEATH

The Best Poem in the World

I will begin with a smaller poem that shows my impeccable sense of rhyme and structure

Roses are red
Violets are blue
This line doesnt rhyme
And neither does this one.

Dont hate on me because I have a gift. But in all seriousness, poetry for me is about as much fun as a root canal, although it does have fewer dentists. Hmm...dentists...

As I sit there waiting in the chair
My heart does skip with every moment pas't
A voice calls out affirming my despair
"Dr. Rauch will see you now at last."

I trudge into a room so white and clean
A single tear runs slowly down my face
For I do know the horror yet unseen
My teeth the doctor wishes to efface.

His weapon is of cold and heartless steel
A grinding whir, a vicious tug and yank
A pain flows through me that is quite surreal
My mind doth crumble, leaving it most blank.

As I wake I slowly start to grasp
The doc forgot to give me laughing gas.

Week 6 - The Sonnet

As I read the instructions for this task

I mourn my fate for lyrics are my bane

There is one thing which I know I must ask

Sarah, have you gone completely insane?

I have no knowledge of pace or structure

I cannot write and, no, I cannot rhyme

Do I have drive and little luck? Sure

But what I am doing must be a crime

There is good news for all the readers though

I'm almost done with this disgusting chore

I can't wait till it ends and I can go

And be rid of this sonnet I abhor

This is the end I will tell you no lies

Mimicking famous poets I despise

See and Thee

In finger concerned conceivèd me loove
And smoothèd starched crust to pearl’d orchid thighs
‘So fail’d not to make beastès of those eyes
Hunting good prey’r ‘round whom men long revoolve
May dew bring nigh blush, cour’zing proove rejoove
Shy idle peek, ‘til lips speak smarting sighs
Though quies’ I ‘main, ‘nough to induce cries
And verbage in tides, retrain me to moove

Yet there thee to lips mine e’er ‘yond à ‘proach
Skins règard to fuse; though ne’er ‘fuse of the shore
Lick of the sands and don white veil once more
Swirl in the cerul’, ‘til the silk peaks we broach
For again and again plunge we to the core
Through par’llels rove we, void of ‘sire to poach

Week 6 - Cereal Sonnet

My inspiration for this sonnet is obvious. After a night of rollicking tom-foolery, all I want, all ANYBODY wants is to go home and get a huge bowl of delicious sugary cereal with 1% milk. But no, you can't do that because the whole damn house is asleep and cereal packaging at 4 in the morning can be heard down the block. My Ode to midnight munchies...My Cereal Sonnet:

I could have Cocoa Puffs or Pops or Kix

or those apple cinnamon cherrios!

I could have Froot Loops or Chocos or Trix

or those uber epic Oreo O's!

You've got the munchies, cereal's the cure

The perfect combo of sugar and crunch.

It will satisfy your craving for sure

When four in the morning's your cue to munch.

You stumble home, everyone has turned in.

You tip toe through the kitchen, bowl in hand.

You unroll the plastic and oh the din!

"Cease that infernal racket!" they demand

Sound waves, why must your rob me of such joys?!

Cereal packaging makes so much noise!

Lazy Hazy College Days

I hear the thunder and know it's time
To get out of bed and start my day
But I remember I can't leave without the sonnet rhyme
I roll over to ignore but I hear my roommate say

Bring a coat outside it's raining like crazy
How badly I wanted to sleep in
I thought to myself, I mustn't be lazy
I must attend class, or else it would be a sin

Geology can sometimes be a bore
We watch videos on volcanoes and rocks
We learn about the earth and its core
I try to keep my eyes off the clocks

It posses to be an impossible task
The boy sitting next to me is wearing his weekend mask

Twelfth Night

Twelfth Night has always been my favorite of all Shakespeare's plays. I love the comedy and the romance intertwined to create entertaining confusion. Though a comedy in many ways, it is the subtle romance embedded in the play that won me over when I first read it. The idea that Viola is dressed up as a man, in love with the Count, whom believes her to be a man, is very comedic and entertaining, but at the same time the reader can actually feel sorry for her that she needs to hide behind this costume and not be able to admit her true feelings. My favorite scene is in Act 2, Scene 5 when she and Orsino are going back and forth talking about the "lady" that Cesario was in love with, though she describes Orsino's features. Viola is trying so hard to get the message across that it is Orsino whom she adores. She talks about a sister of hers that was in love with a man, a love as true as ever. "She pined in thought, / And with a green and yellow melancholy / She sat like patience on a monument, / Smiling at grief. Was not this love indeed?" (112-115) - this quote has always made me relate most to Viola's character, in how her situation is someone comical but at the same time, she has true and deep emotions that the Count is too blind to see.

Sonnet

I got inspired to write this sonnet based on some midnight procrastination between me and my roommates.

Mario Kart

It's way after midnight and we decided to play a game

On the screen pops up, PRESS START

In another good old game of Mario Kart.

I got a turtle and I go take aim,

It's time for DK to get all the fame.

I weave in and out of racer's like it's some sort of art

I make music with my driving like I'm some sort of Mozart.

Peach blows past me, that devilish dame.

No fear, I hit a question mark.

Next thing I know, I have a lightning in tow.

I press the Z-button and the screen goes dark.

My tricky ways have hit an all time low]

I'm on a mission to win the race.

Next thing I know, I'm in first place.

Week 6 - Specific blog assignment

For this week's blog, I would like you to do something specific. The instructions are simple: I'd like you to try your hand at writing a sonnet. It can be either Petrarchan (a la Mary Wroth) or Shakespearean. You may write on any topic.

Due Friday night of this week, as usual.

End of Edward II

One thing that struck me throughout the entire play was the lack of female characters. The only female we meet in the play is the Queen, whom Marlowe portrays as naive and dumb-minded. She truly believes that her getting Gaveston to return from exile will win back Edward's love for her; this is a completely ignorant thought, extremely nonsensical. With the background we were given on Marlowe and his supposed homosexual preference, this kind of portrayal of the ONLY woman in the play may cause the reader to wonder how little Marlowe valued women, as a writer and as a person. If his sexual preference was for men, it is possible that his all around preference was for men, and given the time period, women did not play a large role in society, and maybe that is simply all he's reflecting. This issue is highly debatable. In the end, the queen manipulates her son and continues to be cast as a negative character in the play. However, many of the characters are cast as pretty negative; though for me, I really could not stand the queen's character, and I wonder if that was Marlowe's intention - whether he crafted this character to be thus despised.

Edward 2-Omar Felder

I really wished this play would have ended with vengeance on the Kings behalf. He was so emotional and heart driven that it would have been a great deception piece to turn the tables later on in the play (or at the end of the play).

Gaveston and Co.

I wasn't entirely sure what to make of Gaveston's character in Edward II. On one hand he stood for the ways in which royalty and politicians are easily led away from their duty to run a country and in that way he seemed like an evil. But I also was not sure whether Gaveston was a scoundrel plotter or whether he was just the king's simpleton playtoy/ lover/ lapdog. I felt sorry for the Queen in that Gaveston dominated her husband's love and attention, but I could not make up my mind as to whether the King was abusive for this or not. After all, she herself became fond of Mortimer so I wondered if they had reached some sad state of equality.
Either way, I felt sadness when both Gaveston and the King were executed. Actually, I suppose I just found the play extremely saddening. The impression it gave me of rulership and power filled me with despair for the whole lot of characters, even those plotting to kill the King. I do not know what I would have done to remedy the situtation, but it just seemed to me that everyone was in the wrong place and in the wrong state of mind. The fact that Edward III became the bold king at the very end was not very assuring to me either. I felt like whether or not he ruled the country well, he would probably find some sort of end like that of his father.
Despite the tone of the play, I liked Marlowe's style very much and I would be delighted to be able to see Edward II in performance. I agree that the words were effective, but that to witness such action would be much better. I wonder if anywhere nearby will ever put it on.

Edward II

Throughout the entire play we have this general sense of pity for King Edward. He is not considered a sufficient King in any manner however, you just can't help to feel sorry for him. Perhaps it is because for most of the play everyone around him is plotting against him. Whether it be his wife who leaves for France, or Mortimer who uses his position in his favor. We tend to look at this King as this weak character who can't seem to show any authority but at the same time he is still King. He can easily relinquish any power given to his noblemen. Mortimer seems to always have this idea fresh in his mind. I found Edward III's character to be shockingly authoritative. When first introduced to this young character I immediately thought he would succumb to his mother's wishes. The moment he realized that his mother could have been apart of his father's murder, he sent her to the Tower. It was as if the moment he was put into office, he instantly gained maturity. In class we contrasted this to Queen Elizabeth and her introduction to the thrown. Overall, I enjoyed the play, it was comprehendable but at the same time needed a bit of extra attention to fully grasp what Marlowe was saying.

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.