Langston Hughes reading “The Negro Speaks of Rivers”

I had a CD that was recordings of famous poets reading their poems. It had everyone on it, H.D., Eliot, Pound and Hughes. I have not been able to find it anywhere, so I thought I would look on YouTube for some video to share. Often people take audio and put it to pictures of the author. I could not find a good one for Hughes, using his actual voice. I did find this video, which is beyond creepy. I’m not sure what the animator was thinking (and he has dozens of them if you click on his username…including John Donne!). But, if you ignore the visual and listen to the audio, it is a really interesting recording of Hughes.

Please enable Javascript and Flash to view this Flash video.

Gulliver’s Travels

Gulliver’s Travels is a very important satire, both at the time it was written and today. Though there are specific details about the politics of the time in which it was written (like the way Lilliputians crack their eggs satirizes the split between catholics and protestants) but there are some other ways in which the character of Gulliver and people like him are satirized in a way that is more relevant to a modern audience. Gulliver seems to set himself apart from nearly everyone he meets (and though this is something that makes sense in the fantastical worlds that he visits, where he is an outsider), he continues this behavior when he is at home. What Gulliver gives is is the character of the braggart, which in turn satirizes the travel narrative bragging done by Columbus and others like him. But, famous exploring aside, there are still people today who like to tell us all about their travels and knowledge.

Gulliver has an amazing facility for language (that we can only take his word for), many friends and admirers (that we can only take his word for), a knowledge of medicine and the cultural inner workings of the places he’s visited (that we can only take his word for), if he visited them. In other words we have to choose whether or not we can really believe Gulliver’s tale. Of course, when it is told as a children’s story this is easy to do. But, when told with all the relevant satire one begins to wonder a) if Gulliver visited anywhere at all and b) if he did whether or not he understood the world he was in as well as he claimed. His translations of Lilliputian dialect are, after all, very congratulatory in their treatment of the “man-mountain.”

So, in the modern world, this book is incridibly relevant because not only is it entertaining and funny, but it gives a good portrayal of someone who has quite a big head (even if that head can be held in the palm of Glumdaclitch’s hand).

Belinda

In Alexander Pope’s satirical poem “The Rape of the Lock” the character of Belinda is presented very interestingly. She is praised by Ariel (a Sylph) to be “fairest of mortals” and she is surrounded by Sylphs that are supposed to take care of her and protect her virtue. But, when she wakes up we get a sense of who she really is. She wakes and the first thing she does is primp. “A heavenly image in the glass appears” to which she “bends.” Leaning into the mirror she inspects, possibly adores, and definitely preens.

“Now awful Beauty puts on all its arms;

The fair each moment rises her charms,

repairs her smiles, awakens every grace;

and calls forth all the wonders of her face…”

This quote gives us a good idea of Belinda’s character without flat out saying anything. The fact that beauty is both “awful” and called to “arms” makes it sound like a weapon. “Arms,” after all, could mean an army. With her army of beauty Belinda sets off to play cards with a Baron, her lovely lock of hair taunting him. Why is the lock of hair so lovely? Why does she preen so much? What does the lock symbolize?

Hair grows back and yet, when the lock is cut there is a demand for it to be restored. Belinda cries in anguish that she had given up her lock even though at the beginning of the poem she is making it and herself attractive. Could it be that the lock is a metaphor for virginity? In which case, what is Belinda’s motive at the beginning of the poem?  It would appear that she is making herself attractive for the Baron, but when he takes the very thing she was taunting him with she is upset.

This reminds me of Clarissa’s speech in Canto 5: “she who scorns man must die a maid.” Clarissa means that you can’t have it both ways. Essentially you can’t be a tease. However, Clarissa is ignored and the poem continues. Belinda’s lock is restored and all is well. But, one cannot help but think about Clarissa’s speech and Belinda’s need to preen. It makes me wonder what Pope’s intention was. It makes me wonder whether this is a satire on silly women or the age of reason (as shone through Clarissa). As Bottom in A Midsummer Night’s Dream says: “Reason and Love keep little company together these days.”

Paradise Lost

The epic poem “Paradise Lost” by John Milton is an excellent example of a text that can be poured over, examined and argued about until the end of time. Biographically speaking it is true that Milton was a devoutly religious person and it has been said of him that he unwittingly sides with the devil. But, I wonder how someone can go about making Satan a protagonist unwittingly. Is this something that can be done unconsciously? The first book is entirely about Satan, and is almost uplifting in the way that he gets a band of fallen angels together to support him in his escape from Hell. It seems almost like a “feel-good movie” about that one prisoner who isn’t going to take it anymore and wants to stand up to his captor and show everyone what freedom really means. It is more like that than like the announcement of a villain into the tale.

Oftentimes the first character we are introduced to in a story is the protagonist. It is true that sometimes the villain comes first, but when he or she does their appearance is usually accompanied by some dastardly deed to make us realize that they are the villain. Satan commands our attention in such a way that only a protagonist (or at the very least an anti-hero) could do. True, he ends up being an antagonist to God and to Adam and Eve, but he is definitely the protagonist of Book 1. Anyway, God could be viewed as the antagonist because he is the creator of All, and this includes any arguable villain and every character flaw presented throughout the text (of which there are many).
So was Milton really trying to “justify the ways of God to man” or was his invocation of the “Heavenly Muse” a disguise for a larger need to get down on paper the ways of man to man? Is the story an example of why God is great, and an explanation for why the fall of man was necessary? Or, was it an ingenious way of letting man know that their behavior is justified because they are as God made them and man is truly divine?

The Gardens in “The Faerie Queene”

In Edmund Spenser’s “The Faerie Queene” there are two very lengthy descriptions of two supposedly different Gardens. The Bower of Bliss (which is sinful, artful and tempting) and the Garden of Adonis (which is more heavenly and virtuous by comparision).

Even though they are presented as opposites of one another, it almost seems like they are the same garden in different incarnations. They are both gated, though the “BofB” has a gate that is “wrought with substaunce light” and the “GofA” is gated with two gates on each side “the one of yron, the other of bright gold,” they are still both open. People come and go into and out of these gardens. In the GofA they age, in the BofB everything is less natural and more craftily magical so that there is no age or time, and this lack of nature makes it darker by comparision. Both are adorned with flowers and both a guarded by Genius, the God of Generation. The Genius in the BofB is fake, but sits idly with wine and watches those enter and exit. What I found particularly in comparing these two gardens is that they both feature a dominant female (Acrasia and Venus) who dominates over a now emmasculated male (the soldier in the BofB and Adonis).
“…his brave sheild, full of old monuments,/was now fairly ra’st, that none the signes might see.”

“But she her selfe, when ever that she will,/ Possesseth him and of his sweetnesse takes her fill.”

Each man is now in a position of submission to a woman of power who is governing a gated, and mystical garden. Is this an allegory for Queen Elizabeth? Is it flattering or unflattering? Does Spenser dislike the idea of a woman ruling and sneaks these unflattering female rulers in a text written to flatter her? If so how can we account for the magic of one and the time passing in the other? What do they signify? If not, is this a depiction of what happens when female rulers enjoy a sexual life instead of the life of a Virgin married to her country/garden? Is this a flattering or unflattering text?

King Lear’s Tragic Flaw

It is possible for many people to pour over the text of William Shakespeare’s tragedy King Lear and not find out the title character’s tragic flaw. At least, the flaw is not going to be found definitively. The character is so complex that even Shakespearean actors are fearful of portraying him. Lear is a masterpiece, and a daunting role to take on. He begins the play foolish, but aware and ends it wiser, but damaged and to some extent unaware. But, the amount of insanity that he has sunken into is also up for debate.

Some might argue that Lear’s fatal flaw is vanity. Indeed, vanity is quite prevalent throughout the text. At the beginning when Lear is dividing his kingdom between his daughters he chooses flattery (instead of capability or at the very least, virtue) as his basis for decision. Vanity is evident in Lear’s banishment of his most loyal subjects and family members (Kent and Cordelia) at the questioning of his authority and judgment. Later on we see evidence of it in Lear’s assigning to Edgar his problems. Lear perceives that “Poor Tom” is in a state of madness because he has ungrateful daughters, but this is not so. Still, Lear is right in some respect because both of their problems stem from “thankless” children.

But, the difference between Edgar and Lear is that Edgar is only feigning madness, Lear, quite possibly is actually mad. However, this leads us to another argument that Lear’s fatal flaw could in fact be resignation and submission. Lear gives over every inch of power he has over to his daughters in the hopes that he should be taken care of. But this gift leads to Lear being completely powerless. This could lead a man to madness (especially if, as Lear begins to percieve, his daughters are conspiring against him). But, in addition Lear fears madness, and instead of fighting it off, and fighting for his own well-being he worries about his lack of control and submits to insanity. He could have come in out of the storm, or parted with twenty-five of his knights just long enough for shelter and time to think about what plan of action to take. He could have written to Cordelia to let her know he was sorry; instead he stands out in a storm admitting he has done wrong and almost revelling in his loss of control.

Another element to Lear’s character that could be argued as a tragic flaw is stubbornness. Lear does not listen to the good advice of those who are loyal to him even when they are in disguise. It could even be argued that had he let go of his knights and lived quietly in Goneril’s home he would not have come to an untimely death. He would no longer have been king, but at least he would have been alive and well. Instead he continues to act as king (even though Fool lets him know where he is going wrong) and gets thrown out. Then, he refuses to come in from the storm that is raging outside because he must rail at the heavens that others have done him wrong, when in fact it is he that has set things in motion.

Overall Lear has many levels to his character, which is one of the reasons the play is so renowned. Each character presents complexities of their own, but Lear’s are the most interesting. Is he protagonist or antagonist, or the antagonist to his own protagonist? Lear embodies man versus man, man versus nature, and ultimately man versus himself.

Feste

When watching and reading the play Twelfth Night, one can easily get the impression that the Fool, Feste, knows more than he is telling. Its true that on the surface he is just a fool, there for everyone’s amusement. One could certainly enjoy the play very easily while taking his character at face value and not perceiving any depth to his character. But, he does seem to be a knowledgeable outsider, one of us even, depending on the staging of the play. If, in some productions, Feste addresses the audience personally, then everything he says could take on a whole new world of meaning. He becomes an audience member that can interact with the characters. This makes for a very successful staging of the play because we feel like we are in on the action as well.

When Feste says to Viola: “Now Jove in his next commodity of hair send thee a beard!” He’s remarking on her femininity, while at the same time giving the audience a laugh. She responds with “By my troth I tell thee I am almost sick for one, though I would not have it grow on my chin.” This exchange amuses the audience, and it makes us wonder a little bit (depending on the actor) whether or not Feste knows what Viola is not telling. After all, a comedian should know how to make his audience laugh, and he does so by teasing Viola.

Later on her “preaches” to Malvolio about disguise (whilst, ironically, in a disguise himself):

“…as the old hermit of Prague that never saw pen and ink, very wittily said to a niece of Gorboduc, ‘That that is, is.’ So I, being Master Parson, am Master Parson; for what is ‘that’ but ‘that’ and ‘is’ but ‘is’?”

In the role of Master Parson Feste is still very much himself, just like Viola in her disguise remains very true to her own characters. Perhaps Feste is commenting on the fact that whilst one is trying to hide who they truly are, they generally expose what is hidden underneath.

Feste seems to be put in the play as not Olivia’s fool (for she takes little pleasure in him) but as ours. He weaves in and out of each storyline poking fun at each of the characters almost as if he knows exactly who they all are underneath their disguises. I for one, genuinely believe that he does.

The Wife of Bath

The Wife of Bath, from Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, is a very interesting and conflicting character. On the one hand she seems to exemplify everything one could expect from a strong woman who is open about her sexuality and knowledgeable about her desirability. She seems to speak out against all of the anti-feminist writings of the day, and to know a good deal about how to set herself apart from what other women project. One the other hand as she goes on with her prologue she seems to prove all of the stereotypes that she is speaking out against. But, how much of that is intentional on Chaucer’s part?

Each character in the text, not just the women, is portrayed as satirical and ironic. Each contradicts the path of life they have chosen or have been born into. Each does not, generally speaking, practice what they preach. Then, to what extent is the Wife different from these people? She does practice what she preaches and she is aware of her own contradictory behavior when it comes to what a wife is supposed to be and what she is.

Also, she explains all of the stereotypes of women (i.e. if she’s ugly then she will lust after other men and if she’s pretty other men will lust after her; she will never be chaste). She goes into detail about the different ways that women are portrayed and how they keep women very well trapped. So, in this context, as she appears to be proving these stereotype, how much is she proving them and how much is she proving how trapped women are by them? If she cannot get out of the stereotypes she has described then perhaps that is Chaucer’s way of showing how trapped human beings (not just women as I doubt that Chaucer had feminist knowledge in the Middle Ages) are trapped by the stereotypes of which they are aware and resentful of.

Beowulf

The story of Beowulf is a very ambiguous one. On the surface it is a tale of a human man with Godly strength who fights evil and sets an example for those who do not fight. It gives us a towering hero full of ability, courage and many stories to tell of how he utilized these things. He seems to set a shining example of what all men, heroes and especially kings should strive to be. Alternately, the story could be a cautionary tale. Beowulf has many adventures, but what is the final outcome of these adventures? Where does this glory-seeking behavior take him? When he has finally been mortally wounded by the dragon he has slain he doesn’t give any advice to Wiglaf on how to become a good hero, or a good man. He doesn’t tell his companion what exactly the point of all of his exertions was. Instead, he requests that he buried in such a way that he should be remembered.

So, how much of Beowulf’s character can we make out? Is he as perfect as he seems to be in the first half of the text? Or, is he someone who has lived a life of folly and leaves nothing behind but good stories that could hardy be considered helpful to his people? Is this story a lament for the fact that a great hero lived, fought and died without knowing God, and therefore (according to the Christian belief) could not be saved? Or is it a cautionary tale of what happens when you seek individual glory instead of communal well-being?

It seems impossible to conclude, for in art and in life, there are no wrong or right answers. Art can be created with the intent of our own interpretations molding what becomes of that particular work. In the case of Beowulf there are many interpretations to speak of and individual people can have a few to themselves.  The story can go in either direction, and there is something to be said for that.

Hello world!

Welcome to UMW Blogs.org. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!