Did he really urinate on the palace to put out the fire?

Did he really urinate on the palace to put out the fire? …Prior to reading this book we had been told that Swift uses quite fowl language. Within the first part alone I came across the words “urinate,” “erect,” and “intercourse.” While these inappropriate terms distracted me, I also became distracted by the long paragraphs. Much of the reading was describing the scenery, and though this did help to create some powerful images in my head, it also seemed a bit irrelevant at times. Was there more significance to the excessive descriptions and fowl language then what appears on the surface? Of all things, why make the main character pee on a fire to put it out?

            So, his boat capsized, everyone drowned, he lived and swam to shore, fell asleep, woke up and saw tons of tiny people surrounding him with arrows in their hands. It’s quite interesting to me how quickly this character went from being an intruder to being waited on and fed by all the people of this island. I suppose it has to do with the fact that he sucked up to their emperor. Though he was significantly bigger in size, instead of fighting back he was kind to the people and the emperor and was quickly respected, later even worshiped. While reading this I couldn’t help but think of other books we’ve read with trickery. I immediately thought of Satan in Paradise Lost. Maybe this seems like a bit of a stretch, but both this main character and Satan fell (or swam) into a world that soon became their own. They quickly gained power and were well respected. It seems that “power” is a very prominent idea in many books we have read. How come some characters that don’t deserve power manage to get it so easily? This character swam onto a land that wasn’t his own and was soon referred to as “Nardac,” the highest title of honor for these people. Does he really deserve this honor?

An optimistic growth on racial equality?

So just looking for how far we were supposed to read for Thursday, I realized I was supposed to post for today. End of semester head-case. Sigh… I’ll get my life together soon enough! Just not before I do this blog.

Alright so I’m sure I’m not the only one who was glad to read something about the slave trade that wasn’t straight out of a text book. We certainly have plenty of literature about racism and repression of minorities throughout cultures, but not nearly as many about slave trade itself. Plus, this is truly a relief after Paradise Lost. Behn’s sentences are often so beautifully written and sort of poetic themselves.

When discussing Prince Oroonoko’s lady, the narrator says she has seen  “a hundred white men sighing after her, and making a thousand vows at her feet, all in vain, and unsuccessful.” This says a lot to me about the progression of race even during slave trade. Although the white men enslaved the negroes, the white men were still able to see beauty in whatever form it took. They were able to look past a color and see a black woman as a human being, similarly to how the narrator describes the prince. The narrator’s description of Prince Oroonoko is really quite lovely not only because she addresses his physicality as basically flawless, but additionally because she notes his intellect, social abilities, and charm. She says that both his “soul and body [are] admirably adorned.” I know later it might seem like she’s saying he would be the best… if only he weren’t black. But consider that when she’s describing his beauty she mentions his ebony skin and calls is beautiful and additionally mentions that “certainly” people of color can possess an intense beauty. Without having finished the story, I think it introduces a different viewpoint on race than we would expect from the time period.

I blame you…and you, and you.

So... God created Satan; Satan is the devil; the devil created Sin; then Sin and the devil created Death. Wow. So is God to blame for all of this? Satan would most likely argue yes, that God is to blame for everything, especially if we think about Chad’s “teenage rebellion” analogy. As a teenager, we blame a lot of things on our parents, mostly because it’s easier than finding the real reason for why things happen that we don’t like or understand. So a recently grounded teenager is going to blame his parents for everything since they are the ones who gave him the punishment, just like Satan is blaming God. But how can Satan hate God when He is the reason Satan even exists in the first place? When we argue with our parents we say we hate them, but do we really? Does Satan really hate God or is he still trying to pretend like he is fine with being in Hell and is making the most of it? Back to Satan and his children, isn’t it funny how they are the ones opening the gates of Hell to their Father? Could they be seeking revenge on their father just like Satan is trying to do to God?

         On another note, of course Satan is the one who volunteers to seek out the new world (rolling my eyes). As I got more and more into the story I couldn’t help but find comparisons between Satan and Beowulf. Both men (if you can really call them that) wanted to be the one with all the fame and glory. They wanted to be the men who, if they died (which they knew most likely would happen) were known for being brave and saving others lives and protecting their people. Both their pride and their greed lead to their downfall. I suppose that this story has more connections than I thought, teaching us lessons about most if not all of the seven deadly sins (sloth, wrath, lust, gluttony, envy, pride, and greed). Other than pride and greed, as I have already pointed out, could there be one sin that triumphs all the others? (Maybe we should ask Sin, pun intended).

I'm glad we don't read the rest of Paradise Lost, because for now Satan is too awesome.

So on a real note, we’re not reading past book 2 of Paradise Lost, so I feel alright in saying that Satan is awesome (in past and present definitions of the word.) It’s cool that he might not be a “nice” or “admirable” character per say, but it’s always the dangerous or manipulative characters that make a story appealing. If we didn't get this perspective of/by Satan, we would essentially just be reading the bible. Which is by no means unnecessary since there are infinite biblical allusions all throughout literature, but it certainly wouldn't be as compelling.

I think what makes him so cool is Milton’s influence of free will on the character. He explains himself as “weak [and] miserable” (Book 1, ll. 157) as a fallen angel who has failed in battle with a ruler who “Put forth and full but still His strength concealed” (Book 1, ll. 641.) This demonstrates Satan as the one who, in his own words, was tempted, thereby making us able to sympathize with him in the same way that we should have been able to sympathize with Faustus. He blames this temptation for his downfall, which addresses why his role is temptation of sin. Circling back to free will, Satan’s fall doesn't stop him from doing what he wants to do. He will make his heaven out of his hell. Even if we know the kind of character Satan will turn out to be, for now, we can actually look up to him for how he lives his life. He fought for what he wanted, ended up eternally damned, and said look let’s make the best of it even though he’s been beaten down (literally, down, for nine days.) And that’s fairly impressive to me.

What is a Villain?

As Rebecca mentioned in her blog post, I too have contemplated the idea of the Duke being the villain in this story, rather than Angelo. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, a villain is a character who does bad things, evil things. If this is the case, there would be multiple villains in this story, and every story for that matter. I believe that a villain is someone who purposely does bad things, manipulates people simply for the pleasure of it and perhaps for some gain in power. With this definition, it is easy to see Angelo as the devil. Angelo was given the power of the Duke, and abused his power, simply because he thought he could (why not right? The Duke said he’s in charge of everything). Angelo enforced rules that the Duke had not, but he also made up some of his own (unless it’s apparently a law for an adulterer’s sister to sleep with the man in charge to save her brother’s life, but that seems a bit crazy to me). Anyway, I think Angelo is an evil person and a villain, by my definition of a villain.

                  If I were to judge the Duke’s status as a villain by the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition as well, he too would be a villain, but I no longer think he is. It is unclear what the Duke’s motifs were in the first place for leaving (maybe because he was terrible at his job, maybe he was afraid of having so much power, or maybe he secretly, maliciously wanted to see someone tear the land apart so everyone would hate the new man in power and not pay attention to the Duke’s lack of enforcing laws and doing poorly at his job). Although there are many possibilities, I have a hard time believing that the Duke was plotting for the land to fall apart. It seems much more logical to me that the Duke was having trouble enforcing laws, because his own personal morals were not the exact same as the laws; so, the Duke thought perhaps putting someone else in power would help laws be enforced, and he wouldn’t have to feel guilty about it because he was not enforcing the laws himself. Regardless of the Duke’s motifs, his actions do not mirror those of a villain (yes, maybe he was a bit entertained by the chaos, but who wouldn’t be?).

But Lord Angelo.. Remember You're Only a Substitute Ruler...

Measure for Measure is a lovely example of power corruption. Lord Angelo is a manipulative asshole who uses the law and his own beliefs to make his actions non-hypocritical, even though they totally are. How do I break that down?

Act 2 scene 4 ll. 213-214 show Angelo reflecting upon Isabella’s plead by acknowledging that “Thieves for their robbery have authority/ When judges steal themselves” – this is what people have been saying to him this entire play in hopes that he will draw back Claudio’s execution, but he refuses to acknowledge how logical the idea is until he feels sexual temptation in the moment. This is his defense for trying to sexually bribe Isabella because he knows she wants to save her brother. Angelo believes “Tis one thing to be tempted… Another thing to fall” (act 2 scene 2 ll. 18-19) and therefore only when he “falls” is he willing to give mercy to Claudio. If he is only tempted, meaning if Isabella does not have sex with him, he has not sinned and his actions are not punishable by law as Claudio’s are. Additionally, if he does not have sex with her, he has not contradicted his own beliefs and words (even though he tries.) If he does, he will not execute Claudio, and therefore cannot be seen as hypocritical, because he will have acknowledged his own faults. Manipulative jerk, and everybody knows it, especially Isabella (mind her naiveté when she doesn't realize he’s trying to sleep with her.)

Isabella makes the argument that “it is excellent/ To have a giant’s strength, but it is tyrannous/ To use it like a giant” (act 2 sc. 4 ll. 135-137). She recognizes his abusive power, so how it slips by her when he does it to her for so long during their second meeting is beyond me. Negating her ignorance, let’s get back to Angelo. What kind of person says there is “charity in sin” (act 2 sc. 4 ll. 67) so long as it saves Claudio, but doesn’t find the charity in forgiveness of “unlawful” consented sex?

Angelo somehow sees himself as a good human being, defending his nature by noting “Blood, thou art blood./ Let’s write “good angel” on the devil’s horn./ ‘Tis not the devil’s crest” (act 2. Sc. 4 ll.15-17). He’s only human, so temptation is inevitable and just because he does something bad, it doesn’t change the fact that he’s a good person. This is both his defense and hypocrisy of power at its finest. He fails to see this as an excuse for Claudio, but it is perfectly suitable for him.

Isabella, bless her heart, informs him “Ignomy in ransom and free pardon/ are of two houses. Lawful mercy/ is nothing kin to foul redemption” (ll. 119-121) to which Angelo gets all grumpy and threatens to painfully draw out her brother’s death (great human being, right?). Angelo finally outwardly and openly abuses his power (which may we recall, is only temporary as the Duke is gone) by telling Isabella that “[his] false o’erweighs [her] true” (ll. 184).

For someone who’s never been a huge Shakespeare fan, this is actually really enjoyable and has some pretty sweet lines that I like to put in my blogs in case I write my essays on them.

Escalus to Angelo, referring to Claudio’s execution: Act 2 scene 1 ll. 42 “Some rise by sin and some by virtue fall.”

Lucio to Isabella who thinks she cannot save her brother: Act 1 scene 4 ll. 85-87 “Our doubts are traitors/ And makes us lose the good we oft might win/ By fearing to attempt”

Pompey Act 2 scene 1 ll. 264 “The valiant heart’s not whipped out of his trade”

Act 2 scene 2 ll. 127-128
Isabella: “Yet show some pity”
Angelo: “I show it most of all when I show justice”

"You can't break someone who is already broken"

My mom used to say, “you can’t break someone who is already broken.” I know this saying may seem quite random, but it seems to apply well to Faustus, both physically and mentally. As we read in the story, Benvolio plans to attack Faustus and proceeds to cut off his head. Benvolio, Frederick and Martino then dance around in joy when they think they have killed Faustus, yet to find out that he magically is pieced back together and alive. Faustus has already given his soul to the devil, so he cannot die because his soul is already in the hands of death. They cannot break Faustus because he was already broken as soon as he signed the contract with the devil. But, perhaps Faustus was already broken the moment he started doubting his faith. The second Faustus questioned who he was and who God was to him, was the minute he started listening to the devil. Did the devil break Faustus or was he already broken?

            At the end of class last week, we were told to think about the significance of the clowns. It seems to me that these clowns foreshadow the being Faustus will become by giving his soul to the devil. Like the clowns, Faustus submits to simple trickery and this helps lead to his downfall. Faustus plays numerous pranks on people, even those of high religious status like the Pope. It seems to me as if Faustus is mocking those who believe in God, those who are against the devil. I understand the saying that “curiosity kills the cat,” and maybe Faustus’ curiosity lead him to side with the devil, but why take it a step further and mock those who believe in God? Isn’t he mocking his friends, his family, his old self? How can Faustus mock who he was when he ultimately still isn’t happy with who he is now? He is using the devil as a way to escape his problems, to run away from the answers he does not know and pretend like he is happy when he is not.

            Although I have jumped all over the place there are a few key points I’m hoping to make:

• ·      Faustus is broken
• ·      The Devil broke Faustus (Or Maybe Faustus broke Faustus?)
• ·      Clowns=Faustus’ future self
• ·      Faustus is not happy and seems like he never will be

Also, could there be more to the clowns? Could they in fact be on the side of the devil too?