Is My Head in the Gutter? Or...

I was really excited to read this book. There was no forewarning that this was in Middle English or written by someone blind, or contained weird, dark magic that would accidentally reveal the devil. But when I sat down to read it, I realized that I'd seen the name Jonathan Swift before. Junior year of high school to be exact. Sandwiched somewhere in between Kafka's Metamorphosis and Camus' The Stranger, we took a "break" with Swift's "A Modest Proposal". If you haven't read it, do it. Takes a few minutes and it's the most bizarre thing ever. I won't spoil it for you. But I remember that it was indeed odd and that it led us into a big project where we had to come up with our own modest proposals in the satirical sense. Soooo...I knew that this read would be interesting.

But what really stood out to me, besides trying to grasp the symbolism of dozens of little people trying to contain one big thing or idea, was the vulgarity and specificity. We'll start with the specifics and then get down...and dirty.

The exactness of numbers and values really threw me. Swift provides us with the exact number of years that Gulliver works and studies and travels. He gives us his salary. We know how many men sailed on a ship and that twelve died and six survived including himself. Latitude, longitude? We've got it. My liberal arts brain knows nothing nautical, but I guess that information was helpful or interesting for at least a handful of readers. But why does Swift find the need to be so precise? "I felt this in my left hand" "I picked this up with my left hand". It actually drove me insane! It seems more like how not to write a book. I can appreciate specificity when it comes to something key, like the language. I love, well, most of the time, when an author creates or includes a different language in the book. It makes the reader feel the same way that the protagonist does. What does this mean? Why do they speak that way? Why are they different from us? So I do appreciate the verbatim phrases like Hekinah Dugal. But exactly where his ship sank in the ocean? Hmm...not so much.

The other thing that stands out is the vulgarity. Ohhh man. I'm not talking about the unnecessary urination. (I know at least two people will blog about that) I mean, the little innuendos and sneaky little bits that Swift slips into the story.

The island is Lilliput. Lilliput sounds harmless and it is for the most part, but when I looked up "lilliputian" it means small and trivial. At first I was thinking that this was for the small sized people, but now after reading I think it means they are small-minded. Whether they are small-minded and sheltered in ideas and knowledge or they're just idiots in Swift's mind, I'm not sure. But I think it's meant to be more mean than we would originally suggest.

His wife is a burden. This might be a stretch, but with the whole happy wyfe, happy lyfe motto in the back of my head from earlier this year, I paid close attention to her last name. Burton. To me, this sounds like "burden". Doe he find marriage to be a burden he must have in order to have money? He does make 400 pounds by marrying her? Perhaps he finds a wife to be a burden attached to having wealth.

And of course, who can forget Mr. James Bates, excuse me, Master Bates. If you caught it, you caught it. Unfortunately, my mind caught it before they even introduced him as Master which shows me how far down in the gutter my mind really is. I don't know what Swift is trying to get at by calling him this, but it's definitely there. There's no denying it.

Swift is a strange bird ahead of his time in satire and wit, and I don't know if I hate him for it or am deeply amused...

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?

This play feels like an episode of Maury.

            The Duke is… a strange man. Though he had been attempting to manipulate practically every character throughout the length of Shakespeare’s play, Act Five really emphasizes just how ridiculous this man is. It seems as though he really wants to control every aspect of everything, from who lives and dies, who gets married, and who gets arrested. The entirety of Act Five is really just the Duke saying over and over “HAHA! Look at my cunning scheme!” even though his “scheme” is a massively convoluted plot to accomplish things he could have done if he had simply exercised the power that he already had.

            Throughout Act Five, the Duke acts as though he wasn’t secretly watching everyone, and has Isabella ordered to like five different things. Every time anything happens, he’s just like “OOOOOOKAY, how can I blame this on Isabella, but like not actually because I’m being SNEEEAKY!” He thinks he’s being clever with this plan, but really it’s just confusing. He sort of reminds me of the Mayor from Portlandia. He’s more or less a big man-child with all these ridiculous ideas.

            Departing a little from this idea, I also feel the need to address the common use of disguises in Shakespeare’s works. I know that suspension of disbelief is a thing, but how can no one point out the Duke when all he’s doing to disguise himself is wearing a hood? In addition, how did Angelo never see Mariana’s face or notice that her body wasn’t so much like Isabella’s? This isn’t something I should be worrying about, and likely wasn’t something anyone watching this play would have cared about, but it’s weird to me that such simple disguises are what the entire play hinges on.

            Measure for Measure was as frustrating as it was entertaining. In the end, no one dies and the only punishment is that several people have to be married against their will because the Duke has apparently seen how people treat a ruler who tries to kill people and he’s not about that. He cares waaaayyy too much about public opinion. The play is so convoluted and crazy in its scheming and planning, but the way it unravels is certainly a fun read, and almost definitely better to see acted.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind...

Well, it seems that Shakespeare was able to keep up his usual Comedy pattern of chaos, clowns, chaos and marriage. Not to be confused with the typical Shakespeare tragedy pattern of chaos, clowns, chaos and death. While I don't find this play particularly comical, I will admit that there is a good amount of wit in it, and there are some great lines and passages that make you think...damn.

However, I am very satisfied with the title. In past Shakespeare experience, I have been privy to reading The Tempest, Othello, Julius Caesar, Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet and a few others. Aside from The Tempest, it seems that my teachers have only really assigned me plays that have the title of a character or two who are in the play. As I'm sure Dr. MB is from her title contest, I am someone who loves book and play titles and finds it great when they appear in the text or their meaning is snuck in. It's a beautiful AHA! moment. And Shakespeare does not disappoint. I probably got too excited when I found this one, Act 5, scene 1, line 465, page 203:

"An Angelo for Claudio, death for death. Haste still pays haste, and leisure answers leisure; Like doth quit like, and measure still for measure."

While I am not a firm believer in the theory of an eye for an eye, as made clear in my little Gandhi quote title, I do like that ounce of justice that Shakespeare has provided us. He gave us a title and then that title rang true in the set up of the punishment and the conclusion of the play. Everything finally came together. A lot of the previous blog posts complained that there was no justice and that these characters had no shame in running around in disguise destroying each others lives. In some cases, I completely agree, but in others, this line sort of changes my mind. Maybe in his time disguised as a friar, the duke has learned a better way to dole out punishments among his people. He may not be at 100% as a ruler, but he is certainly trying to get there. I still judge him for hiding, but after he is revealed, he does eventually fess up and explain everything too.

And although I like the title coming into play and the duke stepping back into his role, I am also unsatisfied with the ending. The Duke comes back and acts like some fairy godmother, hopping around and pointing at each character giving them their own happy or unhappy ending. And while like I said, I do not always agree with the whole eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, WHY DOES ANGELO PRETTY MUCH GET AWAY WITH ALL HE'S DONE? The Duke makes this whole measure for measure speech, declaring that there will be justice for justice and saying that for Claudio's death, Angelo will die, but then he pardons it so that Marianna can have a husband. "Lend me a knee" she begs Isabella. Give me a break! I don't see how this whole part fits with the title, unless that's the whole point? Is there such thing as measure for measure? Or is Shakespeare saying, we can't follow anything measure for measure as much as we want to because it just never works out that way. One punishment will never be equal to another.

I'm waiting for an epiphany here or for someone who gets it. I think the title is meant to be ironic, like you can't always get what  you want, or at least you can't always get what you want in exactly the same way that someone else has it. But I can't seem to quite peg why such a significant title was used, appears in the book, but then just doesn't fall through. Any ideas? Lend me a knee.

(also very upset that all the funny shakespeare memes are romeo and juliet and hamlet...give some measure for measure love, internet!)

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. 

From what Faustus has tasted of desire, Faustus holds with those who favor fire

Anyone who knows me or who had the misfortune of being in honors with me last semester, has probably heard me rant about death and more specifically, the afterlife. It's a creepy, eery subject that gives me anxiety and chills just thinking about it, but I think it's something we all ought to wonder about. Sure, we spend a 100 or so years on earth and it shouldn't be filled with worrying about whatever comes next, but after those decades on earth, what happens to us and our souls for the rest of eternity? I find anything that mentions heaven, hell, limbo, purgatory, the great beyond, etc. absolutely fascinating so I was really excited about this book, but I'm disappointed in the character of Faustus himself.

Dr. MB told us that we should try to sympathize with Faustus if we hadn't while we read, and I did sympathize with him to a point. I often have those Thoureau feelings where I wonder what life really is all about and if we're living the right way and sometimes wish I could remove myself from society and write poetry in the woods somewhere. So, I definitely understand Faustus growing tired of his life and his careers and hobbies and wanting to venture out and do something new. For me, this was doing everything in my power to get out of my hometown and go to college in another state. But for Faustus, his boredom and tiredness doesn't bring him to journey around or to pick a new career path or hobby. He turns to dark magic.

I agree with Dr. MB that this magic isn't really magic at all. I think that the so-called "magic" is symbolic for religious and philosophical thoughts and feelings that were frowned upon at the time of this book being written. Faustus making a deal with the devil, well several little devils, is less of a mid-life crisis, and more of a cry for help. I want to slap him across the face for being so arrogant and self-absorbed that he doesn't even believe that hell and evil are real when there is proof all around him and a contract signed in his own blood. Sometimes you just really want to shake a character and tell them how stupid they are.

On a more symbolic note, I am really intrigued by motifs and themes in this book. Especially, hell itself. In act 2, scene 1, line 125, Mephostophilis says, "Within the bowels of these elements where we are tortured and remain forever. Hell hath no limits nor is circumscribed in one self place, but where we are is hell and where hell is there must we ever be...all places shall be be hell that is not heaven!". Isn't it such a bold thought to say that we are in hell right now? That living your life on earth is hell and that maybe you can escape it in death, but maybe you will go on living in hell. Throw away the images of fire, swampy waters filled with skeletons and Satan sitting on a throne of thorns and imagine that instead of life, we call it hell and the only way to get out of hell is to die. And here, faustus has signed an agreement to never escape the hell that he's already in. I think Marlowe has made every reader stop and say, "wait, what?" in just a few lines of a play.

Besides flying dragons, ripping people's legs off and having the seven deadly sins dancing around, I do think that Marlowe is trying to send his readers a message. Yes, Faustus grew bored and signed away his soul and his freedom for greed, but it was of his own doing. I think Marlowe is continuing with that old message that we make our own fate. We need to appreciate life and follow a path, or we'll end up free falling into the depths of hell where we sign away to make bad decisions in order to feel good for just a while. I think this play was a moral lesson on what happens when we stray from our work and our religion, but on some level, it's still relevant today.


(thanks Robert Frost for letting me butcher your poem and use it to title my blogpost)