My Weblog

“..and the Candle is Blown Out.”

prwilliams — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:41:07 +0000

I’ve been privileged enough to experience Sir Robinson’s honors English IV class this 1st semester of my senior year. I have to say I’m pleased to have had Lady Robinson first during my younger years since she is the more tender of the two Robinsons and Sir Robinson is cut and dry. Nonetheless the class was very enjoyable and I welcomed the extra expectations :] My classmates and I learned an inordinate amount of material–such as the vocabulary word meaning excessive that I just used in this sentence.
The first big project I can recall partaking in was the essay comparing or contrasting Beowulf and Paradise Lost. I chose the topic of gold where I uncovered several reasons why authors choose to use gold so heavily in their pieces. While writing the essay I learned that gold is the universal sign for wealth and prosperity, obviously, but furthermore writers use a “good” element to exemplify sin in humans–mostly greed…pretty interesting stuff! Next, I remember exploring “little songs” or sonnets. Furthermore, I acquired knowledge on the Shakespearian sonnet: he used a lot of non-rhymed iambic pentameter or “blank verse.” Shakespeare also filled his sonnets with enjambment which I found out is the breaking of a syntax unit at the end of a line or between two verses. Oh! This reminds me of another assignment we completed in class that I particularly enjoyed. My partner Caitlin and I worked on a worksheet where we learned the origin of letters and words. For example, I was excited to find out that the “S” letter makes the “sssss” sound because snakes made the “hssss” noise; therefore, snake starts with an “S.” Then, people noticed the bees buzzing and noted the “zzzz” sound that the “Z” letter makes.
Like any other English class, we were required to read a few novels and epics. I learned a few new terms such as a kennings and epithets from associated work that went along with these readings. Moreover, the historical outline that we received taught me a lot about British literature; probably the most important thing I learned was the transformation from the Anglo-Saxon belief in fate to the Christian belief in God–this was most interestingly noted in Beowulf. We then watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail which was pretty interesting to me since I believe I was one of the few people who hadn’t seen the movie yet. I learned about the different situations they were mocking–this really cleared up a few scenes I saw my classmates act out in drama class!
Hmm..what else have I learned…Oh! When we had to pick a topic for our senior papers, I picked plastic bags. Honestly, I didn’t know that much about the plastic bags vs. cloth bags situation but I, like most, have always seen the plastic bags cast off around the highways or in trees and thought they were a hazard to the environment. During the research I conducted, I learned about Ireland’s solution to the problem (plastax) and how other stores provide incentives for those who chose cloth bags over plastic ones.
Well that’s a recap of my journey through English IV with Mr. Robinson. I’d say I have survived successfully! Sorry that I have to cut our ties a semester sooner than planned, but I’ll stop in and say hello sometime! :]

Paige

Word Count: 555

Week 12 Response: Macbeth

prwilliams — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 02:15:34 +0000

Sleep, darling

Pg. 75 / Act V / Scene 1

Lady Macbeth: Out, damned spot! Out, I say! One: two: why, then ’tis time to do’t. Hell is murky. Fie, my lord, fie! A soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our pow’r to accompt? Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him?

Doctor: Do you mark that?

Lady Macbeth: The Thane of Fife had a wife. Where is she now? What, will these hands ne’er be clean? No more o’ that, my lord, no more o’ that! You mar all with this starting.

I decided to write my blog about Lady Macbeth’s sleep walking/talking scene. I thought this part in the play was particularly interesting because it was the first time that the readers were given insight into Lady Macbeth’s conscience–something I was wondering even existed considering her cold, heartless ways. Upon reading this excerpt, it became clear to me that the evil deeds she and her husband had committed were beginning to plague her mind. When she exclaimed, “out, damned spot,” I took this two ways: first of all, she could be referring to the blood that might have stained something, because later in the same line she remarks about the old man having “so much blood in him.” Secondly, Lady Macbeth could be referring to the spot as the terrible memory of her actions and she’s demanding them to escape her mind. What is your take on this statement?

Next, we all know that our dreams aren’t exactly in chronological order or always make sense; so, do you think this is why Lady Macbeth’s statements seemed random or sporadic or do you think there is logic to her statements? For example, Lady Macbeth jumps from, “then tis time to do’t,” to “hell is murky,” then “fie, my lord, fie!” Furthermore, her remark about the soldier made me think of the three witches’ first apparition, the Armed Head. Does she sense Macduff as a threat? This makes me wonder if the witches tried to meddle with Lady Macbeth’s thoughts and not just Macbeth.

Her second quote about her hands never being clean conveys a doomed tone. Then it is followed by “no more o’ that” repeated which now looking back could foreshadow her suicide. She appears to be completely fed up with everything going on and is maybe, then, contemplating ending her life. What is your take on this part blogger?

I believe that Lady Macbeth’s death was a result of the torture her conscience had on her. In the beginning of the play, Lady Macbeth had the upper hand over her husband’s actions and pressured him to kill the King. Then, as Macbeth becomes more deranged, his wife seems to become less and less powerful. What does this suggest to you about the power theme of the story? It appears to shift from Lady Macbeth to Macbeth. Then, it seems to me like Lady Macbeth’s guilty conscience began as small regretful thoughts, and then led to nightmares, then to sleep walking and finally she killed herself. Could Shakespeare be suggesting that women are weaker in the long run?

Shakespeare was obviously more knowledgeable than I thought! He had to have known about dreams and their affect on people. We may take this information for granted but back in his time, I doubt that there were people who studied dreams; it seems like he was touching on information about the human psyche. Interesting! What more can you add to this half-thought?

Word Count: 490

Week 11 Response: Sonnet

prwilliams — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 22:52:50 +0000

Oh, The Irony

Turmoil at sea; the rough and anarchic waves

On me reflect. Morally testing is this

Torturous scene. I do love thee, and am no knave.

From within I query; my mind is an abyss.

Seemingly stone-like is his condition for me.

My heart feels warmth with every stroke of his tongue.

His words are secure, then I don’t desire to flee,

But every rose has thorns and I am still young.

Clouds role in, and lust drives strong-the other calls.

He slithers to and fro and lust overrides,

And my sanity is gone. I’m enclosed by these walls.

Why doth he tempt me? I bid what my heart decides.

Strange the way these relationships turn out,

My love has his own thorn I’ve just learned about.

Week 10 Response: Monty Python and the Holy Grail

prwilliams — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 01:35:18 +0000

Monty Python Double Parody

First of all, if any of these ideas seem too extreme and ridiculous, feel free to mention–for I find this assignment particularly challenging considering my lack of understanding of the movie. Ultimately, I’ve decided that the author’s main purpose is to parody medieval events by poking fun at modern day interpretations of these stories. Here it goes…

So, the first and most obvious modern element that jumped out at me was the elderly man whose character was a “famous historian.” In this particular scene, he attempts to serve as the narrator, I believe, and describe more events in the story. However, while explaining the plot his throat is cut by a knight riding past him. From this scene I’ve drawn the conclusion that the producer wants the audience to laugh (ha-ha) then, realize that historians aren’t always accurate when describing the events in the medieval era; therefore, the extreme is taken on the poor man’s miscalculations and the historian is murdered.

Next, after a few other tales involving the different men and their search, the scene returns to the slain historian and reveals that the police had arrived at the scene of the crime. I have a couple ideas about this modern gesture: firstly, I was playing with the notion that the event reflected the idea that law in the medieval era lacked order and was complete chaos. This idea unfolded when I noticed the unorganized process the police were using to search for the murderer. Could the producer be conveying that uniform laws enforced by certain people can not be fathomed in that time period? The other idea I had about the police, was that they served as Britain trying to control uncontrollable people. What are your thoughts on this dear blogger?

Somewhere during the scene where the animated “cave monster” was chasing some of King Arthur’s knights, the animator is shown having a heart attack and thus not able to finish that skit. I found this interesting considering the author of The Canterbury Tales passed away before he could complete his epic as did a few others. Do you think the producer could be poking fun at the way the medieval stories have been altered over the years due to the early death of the original writers? That humor does seem a bit harsh, but you never know with this movie.

In the end, I feel like the makers of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, were simply parodying many British Literature epics while using modern elements to also make fun of the way people view the events of the past now a days. Despite the lack of understanding we have for the medieval era, the movie does make for a humorous parody!

word count: 459

Week 9: The Faerie Queene

prwilliams — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:07:41 +0000

“Fight! Fight! Fight!”

Hello friendly blogger!

Ah, The Faerie Queene…I actually enjoyed this poem! I’m quite sad we’re finished. Anyway, I’d like to compare and contrast the Redcrosse knight and the dragon during the final battle, which could ultimately help the readers better distinguish good from evil through different subjects.

First of all, the Redcrosse knight had someone that loved him–Una; whereas, the dragon had no other relative…the underlying assumption? If you are a good person (good meaning have a relationship with God), you are rewarded! I’m aware that this conclusion seems pretty elementary, but my points get stronger. Then, as the dragon approaches the RCK, the author describes him “all with brasen scales was armd, / Like plated coate of steele” (11;73-74). As we’ve discussed earlier, armor was known as a sign of weakness, but similarly, RCK carries his sword, which is also seen as weak. With this being said, do you think the author meant to relate the two opposing characters? Could the signs of weakness between the two foreshadow an even match up?

Another difference between the RCK and his foe was the places the two went upon their “breaks” from the action. RCK fell down the Well of Life where he gained strength and replenished himself. On the contrary, the dragon mingled around the woods uplifting trees and what not further angering himself. Do you think that the author meant to oppose the two locations? The woods appeared eerie earlier in the story and that was the location RCK ran into Error. Speaking of Error, both Error and the dragon had “coiled” tails. Is there some sort of connection between a coiled tail? Or is this similar characteristic simply a common physical feature?

So, then, after analyzing the battle, I noticed that it took 3 days for RCK to finally defeat the dragon. Similarly, Jesus rose to heaven on the third day. Don’t get me wrong, I realize that after the discussion we had in class, that there are quite a few associations with the number 3, but I couldn’t help but notice this one. What do you think?

Finally, being that a magical Well of Life and luscious shrubbery appeared each time moments before the dragon was about to kill the RCK, I’ve come to the conclusion that Spenser was emphasizing the power of God. RCK would have been murdered without God’s helping hand. So, could the author be suggesting that no matter how strong a hero may be, God is the ultimate savior? AH HA! That’s it! Unless, you disagree…what are your thoughts on this?

So this makes me wonder if the fight also has any allusion to the Catholic Church—since most parts of this epic do—but since I’m not very familiar with the Catholic/Protestant allusions in the poem, I can’t draw any conclusions. Do you believe that the final battle between RCK and the dragon has any significance towards the church? I’m excited to hear your thoughts on this blog!

Word Count: 493

Week 8 Response: The Faerie Queene

prwilliams — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 02:06:22 +0000

Beowulf & A Step Back

Having been discussing Beowulf along with each new epic we read, I’ve decided to perpetuate the comparisons. First of all, the most obvious similarity between The Faerie Queene and Beowulf is the common antagonist: Grendel’s mother, or in the case of this epic, Error. In both epics the female creatures reacted only when they were disturbed. In Beowulf, Grendel was killed and with him being his mother’s only other “kin,” she saught revenge. Similarly, in The Faerie Queene, the knight entered Error’s cave and startled her with the light from his armor so she reacted. Could this be another epic convention? Meaning, could these authors be implying that the evil forces only react when the “good” figures in the story trigger a reaction, whether intentional or not? They may not really be evil by themselves, they just oppose the protaganist which is stereotypically good. Another interesting connection I found between Error and Grendel’s mother was their “followers” reaction to the death of their “masters.” In Beowulf, after Beowulf kills Grendel’s mother, the demons that were living in the “lake of fire” vanished, or disappeared (i can’t exactly remember). Anyway, then, in The Faerie Queene, after Error’s head is chopped off, the “thousand yong ones…sucked up their dying mothers blood” and burst having killed themselves (131;224) What is the reason that these two events parallel eachother? What could the authors be suggesting here about the role of Grendel’s mother and Error?

Enough with the antagonists. I’ve also made some connections between Beowulf and the Redcross Knight. Besides the fact that both of these protagonists portray epic hero qualities such as bravory and strength, they also seem to follow along the same plot line. Beowulf is orginionally sent to Heort to defeat Grendel, but in additioin to this defeat, Beowulf encounters two other foes he has to kill. In The Faerie Queene, so far (since I have yet to finish reading about the rest of the knight’s journey) the Redcross Knight has been sent to defeat a dragon, and has encountered two other opposing forces along the way. If the dragon is the last battle that the Red Knight has to fight, the story lines would almost be identical in the broader scope: Beowulf defeats three enemies and the Redcross Knight defeats three enemies. Do you find the repetitions within these epics redundant or “beat to death?” Do you think there is a similar message that the authors want to convey to their audience upon reading these poems? I just find the parallels quite blatant.

Furthermore, do you think that with the common threads between most epic heros within these stories give readers “tunnel vision?” Let me explain. Because there is a protagonist–who is usually good and an antagonist who is usually the bad figure in the story, some readers may not try to explore other possibilies outside of these standards. For example, as a class we explored the way Grendel behaved and decided that he might not be “evil,” because who are the we to say that he is evil when his home was tampered with and he is an outsider. So, that was a big of a tangent, but I’d love to hear your ideas in response to this blog! Thanks!

Word Count: 545

Week 5 Response: Paradise Lost

prwilliams — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:50:00 +0000

The Great Debate

Unfortunately, I missed class on Friday and didn’t get to discuss the events within book two; so, I’d like to explore the “demonic debate.” First of all, I thought Milton’s arrangement of speakers was interesting. Moloch is the first demon to bring forth a plan-another war; then, Belial suggests that they are lucky to be in the situation they are in because God could have more severe reprimands; next, Mammon claims that making Hell a kingdom of its own is the best solution. When he spoke, Mammon said, “Let us not then pursue-by force impossible…but rather seek our own good from ourselves and from our own live to ourselves” (line 249). Immediately after reading this line I thought of Booker T. Washington and his approach to segregation; he, like Mammon, believed in bettering his situations by bettering himself-Washington wanted blacks to prove themselves hard workers and earn their respect. Likewise, Mammon is suggesting advancing the devil’s freedom by working in Hell. Can you see the connection? Another thing Mammon mentioned that I’d like to bring your attention to begins on line 231: “Him to unthrone we then may hope when everlasting Fate shall yield to fickle chance…” It’s strange that Milton uses Fate here, because from reading Beowulf we know that fate is a belief of the Pagans. So, do you think that he is conveying to the readers that paganism is a demonic religion? Anyway, back from my tangent, following Mammon is Beezlebub. In my opinion, he is the most level-headed speaker and recognizes that “He, be sure, in heighth or depth still first and last will reign” (line 323). This may be a far stretch, but I was wondering if this is where the term “devil’s advocate” was derived. Beezlebub is the devil’s right-hand-man and offers the best solution: to inflict sin within God’s human creatures. What do you think? To conclude my talk of the debaters, why do you think Milton organized the speakers in this particular order? What effect could this have on the readers or plot?

Next, the way Milton describes this “democratic demon debate,” makes me wonder if he is satirizing politicians. These devils are savvy speakers and can lead people to believe something that may not be true or righteous. For example, Satan slyly speaks to Eve and convinces her to eat the forbidden fruit. So, what, if anything, is Milton trying to say about politicians? On a side note, this made me think of Nixon and his deceit towards our country. ARE ALL POLITICIANS DEMONS IN DISGUISE?! Just kidding…I’d like to hear your thoughts on the parallel between politicians and devils.

Speaking of parallels, how about Satan and his self-sacrifice? When offers to sacrifice himself to search for the humans, did this remind you of God sacrificing his only son for the good of the people?! Is this the devil poking fun at Christ, or Milton relating the two opposing figures? It’s perplexing.

Word Count: 491

Week 4: Paradise Lost

prwilliams — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 01:48:06 +0000

Satan the Centerpiece

My blog regarding Paradise Lost is centered on Satan-just as Milton has the devil as his main character in all of Book one of the poem. It’s interesting to me that Satan is the antagonist-to Christ of coarse-but yet, is the main focus of the introduction; because I haven’t finished the play, I don’t know if Milton perpetuates this structure, but what is his reason for giving Satan so much attention? I realize that Milton is adding a myriad of excess details to the actual story of Adam and Eve, but why does he begin the poem and spend so much time with Satan? This thought first occurred to me while I was reading lines 197-202:

“As whom the fables name of monstrous size:

Titanian or Earth-born that warred on Jove,

Briareous of Typhon whom the den

By ancient Tarsus held…”

Does the author mean to emphasize God’s power and strength by explaining the extremities of the Devil? Do you believe that he includes some hyperbole when describing Satan’s size to make God even more powerful than he is already? After all, Milton did write in the beginning of the poem that he intended to “justify the ways of God to men.”

Then, when the author explained the devil, I strangely felt as though he wanted to evoke empathy from his audience. My favorite quote within the first book helps explain my point; the line takes place when Satan is addressing Beezlebub: “the mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heav’n of hell, a hell of heav’n.” The audience probably admires the Devil to some extent for his ambitions-or I could simply be out of my mind. In addition, the quote provides us with insight as to why Satan feels so compelled to rebel against God: he believes he has control of his own mind and shouldn’t have to obey the Almighty.

The devil is determined, and strong willed and will not give up; he goes on to arrange an army of demons and will attempt to overrun Christ. He preaches to a plethora of devils and commands their ways; an example of this is found in line 330: “Awake! Arise, or be for ever fall’n.” Ironically, this line reminds me of a transcendentalist preacher during the Great Awakening. Nonetheless, the characteristics the devil possesses are those shared by the heroes in epic poems, so again, why is the Devil being portrayed in this light?

Now I’m left wondering if Milton will maintain Satan’s major role as the major character in the following books of the poem. Do you think the author sheds this light on Satan to attract the audience’s attention because he is so intriguing? Whatever the reason may be, I’m interested to read more.

Word Count: 462

Week 3 Response: Beowulf

prwilliams — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 02:54:11 +0000

Hello there,

This week I’d like to discuss the significance of the Dragon scene within the poem. Christians view a dragon as a symbol of sin and death. It could be concluded that the dragon is almost the epitome of evil. This being said, could this be why the author decided that the dragon scene should be the last of the three conflicts-considering that is when Beowulf dies? Moreover, I feel like the dragon scene came and went quickly whereas the anecdotes of Grendel and Grendel’s mother were more drawn out. Could this be simply that the author was trying to develop Beowulf’s character in the first part of the poem?

This brings me to another point: Christian allusions in part one of the epic or the “Grendel stage” don’t mesh with the second part of the poem, or the “dragon stage.” For example, line 477 reads, “My household guard are on the wane, fate sweeps them away into Grendel’s clutches-but God can easily halt these raids and harrowing attacks!” Here, there is more emphasis on the Almighty being the ultimate decision maker when it comes to Beowulf’s death. Then later in the epic the dragon is seen as a symbol of wyrd, or fate. Starting on line 2419, the author writes, “He was sad at heart, unsettled yet ready, sensing his death. His fate hovered near, unknowable but certain it would soon claim his coffered soul, part life from limb.” The heavy emphasis upon fate here suggests a more pagan belief. Does this just have to do with the editors or is the author using the two to contrast each other? With that being said, is there a reason that the author chose the pagan approach (fate) when Beowulf finally meets his death?

Next, I was pondering if there was essentially an underlying theme dealing with the person who stole from the dragon. Meaning, would the dragon have unleashed its fury on the other people had its belongings not been taken? I feel like this theory parallels Grendel and his mother. It was said that Grendel was the “Lord’s outcast” and wasn’t welcome at Heort, so Grendel was being deprived of some sort of freedom causing him to lash out the way he did. Furthermore, Grendel’s mother’s only son was then taken from her causing her to seek revenge. Do you agree or disagree that the big message here is that humans create their own catastrophes?

Finally, I wonder about Beowulf’s motives when he sought a fight with the dragon. I’d like to believe that he was simply trying to right the wrongs of the dragon’s actions, but Beowulf’s proceedings cause me to think otherwise: line 2345 reads, “Yet the prince of the rings was too proud to line up with a large army against the sky-plague. He had scant regard for the dragon as a threat, no dread at all of its courage or strength…” This makes me query if Beowulf fought the dragon as a type of final glory-after all, he did have a reputation to uphold. What do you think?

Word Count: 520

Week 2 Response: Transformations within Beowulf

prwilliams — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:24:52 +0000

Because I’m not too familiar with the Anglo-Saxon religion, I’ve decided to explore this topic within Beowulf. I’m wondering if this story takes place during a religious evolution: many believers in Anglo-Saxon took up Christianity. This thought crossed my mind because an original belief of the Anglo-Saxon people was that when a person dies, their body is cremated or put into pottery. In addition, Mr. Robinson’s historical printout explains that immortality is something Anglo-Saxons believe they could attain. However, in the story there are many places Christianity is mentioned and the belief in a Heaven and Hell as well as an Almighty God: “But blessed is he who after death can approach the Lord and find friendship in the Father’s embrace.” It is the belief that one survives through the hand of God. The strong sense of pagan belief conflicts with Christian values. Are these conflicting ideals to be blamed for internal conflict and what is really needed to overcome an obstacle such as Grendel?

Then, Grendel’s destruction upon Heorot, I believe, challenged many Christian’s beliefs and commitment to their God. At first, it was probably easier for the Dane’s to revert to “God can easily halt these raids and harrowing attacks” but in time, after all the damage is done, where do people turn? The once brilliant building was altered into a bottom-less pit of body remains and blood-shed. With Grendel serving as the “Lord’s outcast” and haunting Heorot for twelve years, did those once strong believers’ faith begin to dwindle? And if so, what did they turn to next?! Don’t get me wrong, I realize this is a written story, but the author may be subtly explaining the religious transformation. It is also said that the Anglo-Saxons were strong believers in wyrd, or fate hence, “fate goes as fate must.”

Another type of change I’m pondering would be image. When Beowulf’s men ask to speak with Hrothgar, the guard explains to the noble king that “From their arms and appointment, they appear well born and worthy of respect.” If the men didn’t appear “well born” would the guard have given them the time of day? This makes me wonder about personal image. The scene reminded me of Wuthering Heights when Catherine returned from Thrushcross Grange and met Heathcliff again following her transformation. She laughed at him and commented his apparel telling him he was dirty. I wonder how much of a significance personal image plays upon meeting someone. How has this changed from Beowulf’s times to now? Then again, the sea-guard could ultimately explaining the men as “worthy of respect” to convince the king they are worth his time. Also, because Beowulf was looked at as a mighty person having defeated Grendel and all, were the people again questioning their religion? Meaning, they could have looked at Beowulf as a God himself because of his heroic deeds-after all, Anglo-Saxon people were pagans.

Could the story of Beowulf indeed offer insight into the origins of personal image and changing religion? I wonder if the author, the original author, meant to convey these messages.

Word Count: 514