The Eyes Are The Window To The Soul

Trying to keep up with how Behn writes is hard work for my eyes because of the small print and large paragraphs. Yet, it is easier to understand compared to Paradise Lost, which had my brain doing circles and criss-cross patterns every time. From what I’ve read so far, it is a very interesting story, but I find that I’m not drawn into it like I was with previous things we’ve read. I don’t know if it’s a combination of her writing style and characters, but I feel it lacks something.

I’m probably the only one who thinks so, but I can rock the lone wolf deal. Yet, there are certain excerpts that I find rather curious. The first was Behn’s description of the Prince on page 2187. He seems to be a well-raised, educated and intelligent young man from the description. His physical appearance is flawless and striking against the rest of his people. He is full of vitality and an inspiration for the men around him.

When it says, “His eyes were the most awful that could be seen, and very piercing, the white of ‘em being like snow, as were his teeth” (2187) I was stopped by the word awful. How can someone’s eyes be awful? It is an unusual description for humans eyes because most writers use adjectives like beautiful, mesmerizing, otherworldly, never awful.

If I could guess, I think she describes his eyes this way because of their experiences, knowledge and ability to see through you. Nothing could be hidden from the Prince because he saw and understood everything going on around him. He spoke English and Spanish so he could communicate with the white people besides his own kind. Since he started young as a fighter, the things he experienced and saw probably shaped him on the inside and sometimes shine through his eyes.

It can intimidating to look at someone who you know has more knowledge and skill than you. You fear their criticism and judgment because you are just trying to get through the day. The people in his town or village may have seen him in this light, besides respecting and looking up to him. The Prince certainly sounds like a fearsome thing to behold. With his strong personality and impeccable character, he is a man’s man. Just his description intimidates me a bit. He seems to be very accomplished at a young age and knows who he is. 

Even Satan Gets the Blues Sometimes

If Milton wrote this book without the unending sentences and copious amounts of allusions, I would enjoy reading it more. Alas, this is not true and so I battle my way through the text, trying to understanding what is happening. I've enjoyed reading about Satan in Book One because he’s not a divine figurehead authors try to pick apart anymore. There seems to be a stigma attached to Satan/ Lucifer stamping him a forever-evil being, scaring away some writers.

Do I think Satan is a completely diabolical fallen angel turned ruler of hell? Sure. Do I think he has his reasons for being that way? Of course. I am always one to root for the bad guy of a film or book and Satan from Paradise Lost is no exception. He presents an interesting divine figure for humans to judge based on his story. Everyone knows he fell from heaven after disobeying Gods orders and raising an army against him. Yet, do people understand why Satan acted that way?

In previous blog post, I mentioned how Satan was a kid with parental issues. I still believe this is true, but I won’t say the blame solely lies on Satan. I feel God is also guilty in regards to how he handled Satan’s rebellion. Once Satan fell, he had no more qualms against being bad because he was his own keeper. When he fell, Satan gained freedom to do whatever he wanted within his power range.

He essentially was a kid set free inside a candy store. Satan said it best in Paradise Lost with its, “Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven” (ll.261-263). While Hell may be miserably hot, torturous and filled with unending misery, Satan is free. The angels who fell with him are also free. They live in this grand palace named Pandemonium without rules. There is no more following orders from God or always having to be virtuous.

This being said, I find I still wonder if Satan is truly pleased on the inside with what he has done. While he was unable to dethrone God, he led a massive uprising that ended with him a ruler of his own domain. Satan owns the sentencing fist and leads whatever crafty mischief he desires. Yet, does he tire of these repetitious activities and wish for something more? I’m not saying he would return to heaven, but maybe just stop being for a while.

Humans have been obsessed recently with the idea of vampires and immortality, but I wonder how long we could endure that. I would think after a couple thousand years, life would become monotonous and boring. It’s why I wonder if Satan wishes he could go on vacation from everything for a long time. Then again, I might be very wrong and Satan is just a sadistic bastard who loves to watch people stub their toes on a doorjamb. I mean, seriously, how many times is enough dude?

The King of all Pricks: Lord Angelo

From the start, I knew I was going to hate Lord Angelo. My suspicions were rewarded when I began reading Measure for Measure. Usually, I don’t love or hate characters in books, plays or novels, but I’m stuck hating Angelo. I just want to take his big dummy head and squish it. I mean, come on, why does he think it’s remotely okay to execute a man whose girlfriend is about to have a baby? Does Angelo really think Isabella is going to hop in bed with him to save Claudio’s life when Angelo is condemning Claudio for the act he is asking Isabella to participate in?

The arrogance! The conceit! I just can’t take it. I haven’t despised a character this much ever. Angelo has a firm place on my literary hit list along with Don John from Much Ado About Nothing. Angelo reminds of an unemotional, stoic and arrogant man who cares only to maintain his reputation and instill fear in the people. He thinks with his head, not his heart.

When Isabella meets Angelo for the first time, it is not his heart but, ahem, other senses, that desire to take her for his own. I don’t believe him when he says in Act 2, Scene 4, line 152, that he loves Isabella. Angelo is just using that to get into her dress. I love the fact Isabella rejects him and can’t believe Angelo would ask such a thing of her. For the longest time, she had no idea what he was talking about with his innuendos.

This being said, I think Lord Angelo and Isabella are foil characters. While he is merciless, cruel and stoic, she is virtuous, caring and loyal. Though Isabella does not condone what Claudio did, she still intercedes on her brother’s behalf to save him. Angelo has a hard-fist and stands firmly in the decisions he makes whether or not they are moral. He doesn't consider the reverberations or consequences clearly.

Angelo sees Claudio’s execution as the beginning to a new reign in the state, where before the people ignored the laws. He wants to put fear back into the crowd to stop the unclean and improper lifestyles that have arisen over time. He chooses Claudio to make an example of him so others will stop or not attempt what put Claudio in prison. I find Angelo’s reasoning to be faulty and undignified.

 I agree with Isabella when she told Angelo to punish Claudio for the sin, not the deed. Why should Claudio lose his life when he can spend the rest of it atoning for what he did? Is that not punishment enough? But I doubt Lord Angelo will change his mind as the play continues. He is a jerk and so a jerk he shall remain, unless, by the grace of God, he is a dynamic character. I find that to be highly unlikely though. 

Deal or No Deal?

I've been faced with the question of making a deal with the devil in high school. I attended one of those strict catholic schools where God was glorious and Lucifer was a bad spoiled brat with daddy issues. During a lesson on morals, my teacher asked if people would make a deal with the devil if they had the chance. As you could’ve guessed, most the class said no deal. The pride on my teachers face was evident.

           

Yet, when the moment had passed, I questioned the truth behind our words. To this day, I still don’t know what my answer should be. Not until the moment presented itself, would I. The decision is the greatest act of selflessness or selfishness. I can understand when people say they’d volunteer themselves to save someone they love. It is a selfless act. Then again, I can also understand when someone volunteer’s their soul to become immortal, powerful, intelligent beyond human ability. It reflects the selfishness in humanity.

This war between selfishness and selflessness manifests around Faustus with his visits from the good and bad angels. Both sides have valid points for Faustus to consider before he makes the deal. On page 20, the good angel tries to keep Faustus from hell by saying, “Sweet Faustus, think of heaven and heavenly things” (ll. 21-22). Meanwhile, the bad angel tempts him to think, “No Faustus, think of honor and of wealth” (ll.23). Their external appearance signifies the internal war Faustus fights regarding what is right and what is wrong.

Faustus is a confused man too easily tempted by power, vengeance and desire. He thinks it’s possible to change his life for the better by hiring a demon servant to do his will without considering the consequences behind it. Does he actually know what he’s gotten into with Lucifer? Hells-belles no. Lucifer is a tricky bastard as far as I’m concerned. He’s going to get you one way or another because that’s what he’s known to do.

I find it funny that the demon Faustus calls upon, Mephostophilis, tries to make him see it’s a bad idea to sell your soul. You will be eternally damned aka very unhappy when you die. No more cheesecake for you or long walks on the beach. Fiery living quarters and eternal servitude await instead. So, I guess my true feelings toward the deal are actually apparent now. I would not make a deal with Lucifer, unless something worth sacrificing myself for appeared. Until that moment presents itself, I don’t know what that something could be. 

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. 

Domination or Equality: You decide

Recently, there has been controversy surrounding the topic of feminism in the media world. The definition of what it means to be feminist is blurring as people add their opinions to the list. Even the word ‘feminism’ has a growing cloud of bad connotation as a result. For those who are reading this now, I’m not going to dive into the thick of what constitutes feminism. You can find that on another blog somewhere.

Instead, I find it pertinent that we read the Wife of Bath’s prologue and tale now. She is a prime example of an independent woman, classified as feminist. Some may say she comes off too strong, too opinionated and arrogant. But I see that as her knowing what she wants, how to get it and be content with her life. Who said she wasn't happy living way she does?

As far as I can tell, she likes to choose whom she marries and how to conduct herself. She is proud, confident and cunning. She wields her promiscuity deftly, knowing its power and reigning it in at the appropriate times. She may not be the most beautiful belle of the ball or the fairest, but this wife of Bath doesn't need those attributes to survive. She is an ultra-feminist.

Even though I like her, I also pity the wife of Bath. I see her as another outcast character because people don’t know how to react around her. She seems to have this judgmental barrier, guarding anyone from understanding who she is, why she acts in such a manner and the underlying reason for her personality. She isn't given a chance to correct any wrong impressions or rid people of their judgments.

I think this is a main reason she gives such a long prologue. For the first time, she is given the chance to explain her life without anyone interrupting. This storytelling bleeds into her tale of the knight at King Arthur’s court, sent to learn what all women desire. It’s appropriate considering the wife of Bath was trying to enforce it in her prologue, this idea of domination over their husband or lover (ll. 1038-1041).

It is a simple lesson she wishes men everywhere would know and accept. If they let their wives hold power over them in matters, they would be eternally happy. To people in the medieval times, this was an implausible thought. Men were the leaders of the family and women held little power. Once again, Chaucer contrasts inner desire with reality. 

Comrades in Arms: Two Monsters Trying to Drink at the Pub

I have always been one to sympathize with an outcast character.  It’s something that comes naturally to me and most people. Every time I read Beowulf, I notice how the monster Grendel, in his loneliness and rage, reminds me of another infamous monster: Frankenstein. It is a stretch, considering the two are involved in very different situations. Yet, their personalities are very similar in regards to how humans treat them and how they react in return.

Both creatures are cursed the day they are created. Frankenstein is a freak of nature, something inhuman and terrifying. Grendel is a disfigured man, scary to behold and disgusting. Their physical appearance is monster-like and their personalities are evil, distinguishing them from normal human beings. Both Grendel and Frankenstein share feelings of loneliness, fear and hurt because people shunned them from the beginning.

On page 57, lines 849-851, the imagery presented as Grendel runs from the fight with Beowulf, reminds me of Frankenstein when it says, “With his death upon him, he had dived deep / into his marsh-den, drowned out his life / and his heathen soul: hell claimed him there.”

These lines in particular remind me of Frankenstein, when he hid away and became a solitary creature. After he tried to befriend a human family and failed, he ran away into the wilderness to live out a lonely existence. Grendel does the same thing. The villagers forget him, until he begins to attack people. By that time, his existence is known through bloodshed and hatred. No one wants to befriend him.

They do not stop to think why Grendel is attacking them. None of the villagers consider that Grendel just wants to be accepted and welcomed. He is a poor creature, looking for the chance to be normal. Unfortunately, like Frankenstein, Grendel will never be because of his physical appearance. Immediately, when a person does not look the same as everyone else, they are thought of as different. Grendel nor Frankenstein had a chance to make friendships because of their appearance.

While Grendel and Frankenstein are separated by centuries, they are comrades of loneliness and misunderstanding. Shut out from the human world, both struggled to find peace and sympathy. They are complementary characters who evoke similar emotions from the reader. But I do wonder, are there any other villainous/ outcast literary characters that remind our class of Grendel?