Showing posts with label Matt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Matt. Show all posts

Friday, October 9, 2009

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

Friday, September 25, 2009

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.

Friday, September 18, 2009

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.

Friday, September 11, 2009

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.