Wilsonnnnnnnnn I Want Off This Island!

Okay, is it just me or did this endless description the geographical features in Utopia and its irrelevant details remind you of the beginning of The Mayor of Casterbridge? I mean pages upon pages of (what seems to me) pointless descriptions that could be left out. A lot of the footnotes didn't help me either---like I still didn't understand the damn allusions after I read the footnotes!

Anyway, on to other things...
More's description contradicts itself a lot. First, it says, "agriculture is the one occupation at which everyone works, men and women alike, with no exceptions. They are trained in it from childhood...and partly through field trips to nearby farms" (44). THEN, page 45, the texts says, "every person (and this includes women as well as men) learns a second trade, besides agriculture. As the weaker sex,women practice the lighter crafts, such as working in wool or linen; the heavier tasks are assigned to the men" (45). (Not the point right now but this sexism also contradicts equality in Utopia...anyway...)

Page 47 goes in a different direction and names people who are exempt from working: "in each city and it's surrounding countryside barely five hundred of those men and women whose age and strength make them fit for work are exempted from it. Among these are syphogrants, who by law are free not to work, yet they do not take advantage of the privilege, preferring to set a good example to their fellow citizens. Some others are permanently from work so they may devote themselves to study...ambassadors, scholars, priests, tranibors and the governor"." How are all of the people equal if certain groups are given privileges that others are not? This sounds like the world I'm used to, and Utopia is not much different. The text doesn't even say these people are except from second trades, so I assume that they don't work at all. Sure people can do busy work all day and look like they're actually doing something---I know plenty of lazy people who can achieve this. Who's to say these highly favored men aren't taking advantage?

THEN, page 46 yet again hazes the duties of the citizens, women in particular: "in the first place, hardly any of the women, who are half of the population work; or if they do, then as a rule their husbands lie snoring in bed." WTF!?

Also, a little against the point but something I found interesting is the fact that Utopia prides itself on being such civil and organized people, but they force natives to give up THEIR land for them to ruin with agriculture and other urban processes. The Utopian settlers clearly understand that this land does not belong to them because they say it belonged to someone else, but they justify their barbaric behavior of starting war with the explanation that these people are wasting their land?! I don't want to live in Utopia anymore! When the self-righteous ass Europeans came over to North America, they pushed Native Americans around and oppressed them in their own land! How is this any different? How can such a horrible place be celebrated, and how do they think they are any better than their European counterparts if they're doing the SAME THING? I want off this fucking islan

Every day is Hythlo-day when Raphael never stops talking...

Hythloday seems like a pretty smart, well-traveled guy. Specifically, his thoughts on the advisors of kings are well thought out, though they don’t give any credit to anyone. Throughout his entire explanation he’s basically just saying that every noble person is too greedy to make any kind of good system work, and I would say he’s right. For example, when Hythloday discusses the scenario in which he notes the Macarians and their limited treasury, More accepts that the other advisors wouldn’t agree with Hythloday at all completely out of greed. A system like that is entirely unrealistic simply because of the greed that is inherent in people. That’s not to say that every person is filled with greed, but there is a natural desire to have more, and especially for someone in a position of power, it’s easy for that desire to run wild. Because we don’t get a whole lot more context on the Macarians, it’s difficult to see how their system really functions, but I bet there are a lot of checks and balances that make it work. In reality, however, I just can’t see that working. Much like the politicians in our country (not trying to get political, but this is a fact), there are some that can be susceptible to bribe, which makes the entire system null. If you can buy someone’s vote, you can get whatever you want, then checks and balances don’t work particularly well. That is a massive oversimplification, but the point remains the same.

Anyway, back to More and Hythloday. One of my problems with Utopia is that I can’t argue too much of what Hythloday is trying to say. In the context of the story, Utopia is an actual place that Hythloday has seen and is successful. Because of that, it’s difficult for me to say, “no, that’s entirely unrealistic and impossible,” because he does have an example to lean on. Hythloday is correct that so many political leaders are too wrapped up in the idea of private property versus actually sharing things, and does make some good points about it.

I think my main point against Hythloday (because I really do just feel like I need to argue with him and I’m not sure why) is that in order to create a place that is self-sustaining with no wars and no desire for luxuries, you would need to start from scratch with people who were completely committed to it and a population who never knew anything else. It’s impossible to take an established power like England and suddenly change everything. No one would accept it and it would very quickly become chaos. Hythloday really seems to want the rest of the world follow the ways of life of these different places he’s traveled, but it just couldn’t work out. Really though, I think Hythloday already knows that.

Give me More!

     I can not express how excited I was when I opened up Sir Thomas More's Utopia and saw letters and words that I recognized. I thought: "Finally! Something I can read without needing a translator!". What I like best about this book is, not only that I can read it without feeling stupid, is the style that More writes in. I love how he is so descriptive about so many different things, in fact I believe that his description of Raphael Hythloday: "The stranger had a sunburned face, a long beard, and a cloak hanging loosely from his shoulders; from his appearance and dress, I took him to be a ship's captain" (More 10) was the beginning of my excitement about this text. I know that it sounds a little crazy, but generally, I find that if I like reading the first few descriptions of anything in a book, I can tell if reading it is going to be a struggle for me, or an enjoyment.

      I like the ideas that the Utopian society has. No greedy want for money, no real possessiveness of people or property, equality, religious tolerance, very very little behavior that could be considered immoral, and the fact the there are rational decisions made on behalf of the country. I sincerely wish that our own society was like this. I feel like things would be as different as night and day. Who do I talk to about setting this up?

Here's a comic that I think describes how many of us feel, not only about the many different aspects of our world and society, but also about the little things in life such as school, work, family, the dining hall food, and other things:

          I am very excited to see where this novel takes our class, and as I have never read it before, it will be fun for me to see what others have to say about Utopia. Looking forward to this new reading with everyone! 

More and Raphael talk a really long time...

I like that for once, the speaker’s name is the same as the author’s. (Although, we still cannot automatically assume they are the same person. Maybe More just ran out of names for characters?) The fact that More’s Utopia is so influential makes me feel better for telling vague stories. I feel like I am listening to a friend talk on and on about what he thought was the most important part of his conversation with Raphael, which is a nice change of how storytelling I approached from Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales.

Raphael sounds like the ultimate critic of… everything (except Utopia and its surrounding countries, of course). He shoots down the suggestion that he should be an advisor to a king, since kings don’t care about philosophy, and he argues against England’s current punishments for criminals, pretty much saying execution does not get at the root of the problem nor does it deter crime. Raphael comes off as kind of a bad-ass philosopher who doesn't like the game, nor does he intend to change it because that would require going through imperfect channels.

Maybe it is just me, but I like Raphael’s preferred punishment system, as it insists proportionality between the punishment and crime, and ensures fair payment to the ones harmed. It seems like a better version of our current jail system since prisoners are not physically locked up (although I wouldn't say I would relish getting a piece of my ear chopped off). It is strange that he comes up with fake scenarios of him presenting ideas at meetings, but it gets the message across that philosophy and politics don’t mix well.

Raphael also doesn't want to justify society’s immoral actions and would rather say what he really thinks even if no one agrees, which is pretty noble, but I still don’t get why he left Utopia to just talk about it but not actually try to affect kings or even get them interested in philosophy. Anyway, (sorry if this is all over the place) I am looking forward to hearing more about Utopia in Book 2!

Yes, these are dancing prisoners.

Money Grabbers

While reading  Utopia, I couldn't help but to think of the state that America is in now. The rich are getting richer by monopolizing  resources and the people on the bottom are forced to survive by committing petty crimes like theft, prostitution, and drug trafficking---which they receive harsh punishment  for. I couldn't help but see a parallel between the world that was described in this conversation and the world I live in now.

The most similarity. Saw in this text to the modern world was that "the king should... let other kingdoms alone, since his own is big enough, if not too being for him" (30). We are always prepared to go to war, but we aren't prepared to fight for those in our country who have less or nothing at all. We'd rather poke our noses in other peoples' business (countries) than tend to our own. We spread ourselves thin every time like The king in the story trying to rule Italy and France at the same time. France is way too big to govern as is, and to add another country to his duties is just plain stupid. We have yet to understand that thought in he modern age.

There are so many things wrong with our nation that we're willing to sweep under the rug while acquiring new territory: the upper class is robbing us blind with taxes and commercialism and the poor and working poor are starving to death. More explains in this text that one person's greediness can bring a whole country down and make it barren and unproductive. He also says that  depriving a group of basic rights breeds thieves: "If you allow young folk to be abominably brought up and their characters corrupted, little by little, dome childhood; and if the. You punish them as grownups for committing the crimes to which their early training has inclined them, what else this, I ask but first making them thieves and then punishing them for it?" (21).  Basically, the country breeds thieves because these people have no other choice. They aren't given a fair chance to beat the odds because they were raised the wrong way, yet this was the only way their parents knew to survive. It is the country's fault that these people are committing the crime, yet they punish the people for something out of their control. THIS DOESN't MAKE SENSE. WHY IS THE WORLD SO STUPID?


I think this text as a whole applies to the current state of the U.S. because its gluttonous hand wants to stick dig into the candy jars of all nations. America wants to receive the best of everything and be the best at everything. More argues that "one greedy insatiable glutton" leads his whole country into destruction and waste. No one is really happy; everyone hurts each other to get to the top. I think this is true because while there are greedy people in the top, they're always on guard because they don't want to lose their privilege, power, and possessions. Poor people, on the other hand, are always armed because they're desperate and have nothing to lose.

Have things really changed?

Utopia. . . I really enjoyed Raphael's talk about robbery and some problems with France. It was amazing to here their problems years and years ago and we still have many of the same problems. My father works with at risk youth and worked with at risk adults for most of my life. When I hear many of their problems, they're an eye opener for me. The reason being is they are just trying to survive. They are already in a bad situation and some of them don't know any better than to steal or lie or cheat just to live for another day or week or month. There are so many out of work or homeless veterans because they served their country and now have no idea how to integrate back into society. There aren't that many programs that help them. DAV (Disabled American Veterans) is one business that helps, but they can't do it all by themselves. It is just becoming better now, with more and more companies having to hire an arrange of people.

If we teach our children to be thieves, why should we discipline them as adults for stealing? ? ?  This is another question Raphael asked in the reading. It just doesn't make sense to me. This goes back to my point earlier, they are only doing the only thing they know. They have no other trade or skill. What else can they do? I'm not from Frederick, however, I am working for a non profit organization while I'm here and its astonishing to me to see so many people struggle. The services that are offered and even some that aren't offered not only here, but in most of MD and DC need to be changed. Although we offer free education for children and it is only mandatory until the age of 16, we should also offer education, trades, and/or even job skills for people who actually need it. I'm talking about the many adults who are illiterate or don't know how to manage money, which is a skill that should be taught in school, but is not, or who are only wanting to live on welfare, just because. The system should be re organized and re worked. This is always on my mind, especially since I see the causes of it at work or hear about cases my father works. But our reading really showed me how much times have changed; and it ain't much.

More's City! Raphael who??

We are introduced to the circumstances surrounding More's trip to Flanders. The first part of the trip is centered around communication between More, Giles and Raphael. Their conversation is revolved around religious, civil and philosophical issues. They begin in a church, then in a garden , and all of a sudden they stop for a lunch break...hmmm? The debate of each others philosophical theory seems to be a leisure activity these three men partake in. The question I have is, does political work count as philosophy or knowledge? 

We realize that Thomas More wrote Utopia which was an important point in the argument between he and Raphael. We know that More was a lawyer, served many roles, and wrote a number of works that contributed to this time period. However, More's character in the novel seemed to be a little more wiser than the actual More himself. More is interested in the philosophical plan of the European and Christian customs. Thus, in this book More does a good job with critiquing the Utopian society. His visit to England helped him justify his desire to discuss reform. More is eager to hear how Raphael feels about England since he spent several months there.  

In counter we go to Raphael. Raphael seems odd to me in book one. He is clearly very intellectual and has great ideas. Some of his ideas seem very unrealistic and extremely wordy! He says way too much, and never seems to answer questions straight on. However, his knowledge is too valuable. More doesn’t actually take a lot of Raphael's ideas, but something about what Raphael brings to the table causes More to believe in reform. It seems as though More uses Raphael to create issues that need to be resolved. Raphael mentions that once a noble lord has died, they become beggars and thieves. His theory of punishing thieves and repaying their debt by them making them live out their punishment and then put to death is really harsh. However, that’s Raphael for you. 

  

Book one definitely builds suspense! Book one seems to present the negative side of "civilization". The references comparing European problems with the government. Book two should be quite interesting.

There's something fishy in these Utopian waters...

The letter to Peter:
Before we even get to the story, it's really interesting to read the letter because it attempts to prepare the reader for what to expect. Thomas More begins by apologizing by sending this over a year later when it was supposed to only take six weeks. He also says that it should be simple and easy to understand because fancy, complex language would ruin it. More blames his daily chores, family, job and duties for not having time to write and says that he took time out of eating and sleeping to get this done.

Most interestingly enough, he is embarrassed because he has no idea where Utopia takes place. The storyteller, Raphael, has left this detail out and nobody has asked about it either. I think this is really symbolic because we can all talk about a perfect society that we would like, but we may not know how it would come to be or where it would go.

Our fiction v. lying discussion also makes this quote stand out, "For as I've taken particular pains to avoid having anything false in this book, so, if anything is in doubt, I'd rather say something untrue than tell a lie. In short, I'd rather be honest than clever"(pp.7). The quote makes it sound like anything in this story that sounds fictitious is true, but as a reader I feel like I'm headed for a trapdoor on the floor.


Book One:
Well, it's official. I miss middle english. I have no idea what I just read. It started out simple enough and then it became sheep, thieves and shipwrecks into mysterious Utopia and I'm stumped. I know we'll dive into the chaos and confusion tomorrow, but I guess I'll share what simplicity I was able to squeeze out.

Raphael thinks he has found Utopia. The place and the ideal. What bothers me is that this "place" if it's real, or if it's a state of mind or an asylum, is known by nobody else so far in this book. He disappeared there for five years without his wife and children. It was perfect because he was alone? This makes me think that Raphael is some sort of outcast. Why does he not fit in with the society? He obviously thinks he is superior because he is a philosopher. He says over and over that a philosopher's ideas and thoughts would not be accepted in a king's court. But does he mean all philosophical ideas or just his own? There's something fishy going on.

Raphael describes the Utopia is surrounded by deserts, beasts, serpents and criminals and as you get closer to Utopia it is milder weather with better people and trade. This all sounds like some big , weird metaphor. Is his current life the outskirts of Utopia filled with cruel people as foul as beasts and pressure as hot as the son? Is he surrounded by rule breakers and vindictive people? Is Utopia simply his personal utopia?

I can't decide whether Raphael is an existentialist or whether he belongs in a straight jacket. I can't shake this feeling that Utopia isn't real. Right in the introductory letter, they share that Raphael has not said where it is. He does say that Romans and Egyptians shipwrecked there and stayed, but that's all we seem to get. He also says the tale will take a long time because he remembers everything. If he left to bring more people back, why hasn't he written it down or taken voyages there to show other people?

I'm going to foolishly put my foot down and state that Utopia is not real. It is real in the eyes of the believer but Peter and Thomas would see Utopia differently than Raphael does. My main question is really, is Raphael a philosopher or is he insane?

To Punish and Enslave

After reading Book I of Utopia, I suddenly felt the urge to go back to read Beowulf and try to understand Middle English. While the language is easier to understand, the density and seriousness that Thomas More talks in is overwhelming.  I had to stop several times to make sure my head could digest that material. Once I did, I was slightly able to comprehend what was going on between the characters.

An idea that stuck out to me was Raphael saying:

'If you allow young folk to be abominably brought up and their characters corrupted, little by little, from childhood; and if then you punish them as grownups for committing crimes to which their early training has inclined them, what else is this, I ask, but first making them thieves and then punishing them for it?’ (21)

I agree with this idea because it is hard to expect someone who has known crime or poverty their entire life, to reconsider, as they grow older. They are going to continue living the way they have because it is all they know, especially during the 1500s in Europe and elsewhere. People had little social mobility, allowing many opportunities to be out of reach. Not to mention, those who lived in poverty were concerned daily with finding food and not starving.

This doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished for their crime of thievery, but their past needs to be taken into consideration. As children, people follow the models set by their parents or guardians. If they live a life of poverty, relying on stealing and scrounging for necessities, they will most likely continue on this road. Only a select few may rise above this behavior and strive for more in life.

As a result, I think Raphael’s solution to punishing the thieves by making them repay the value of the items they stole to the victim of the crime. The thieves are not just put to death, but forced to live out their punishment and learn to abandon a life of crime. It is more just in my opinion because death is the easy way out and the criminal faces no punishment. Granted, the criminal can’t see family members or live anymore, but that’s not the point here.

I guess what I’m trying to ask is, what defines a good, justified punishment for criminals? Throughout history, there have been varieties of ways criminals have paid penance for their crimes. Arguments made concerning their effectiveness will never end.