Old Thesis:
Keats explores the relationship between mortality and the limitations of life through his use of repetition, language, and structure. The poem is a Shakespearean sonnet consisting of an ABAB CDCD EFEF GG rhyme scheme; it includes three quatrains and a concluding couplet that each reinforces the limitations of life, while reflecting the themes of love and fame.
New Thesis:
Keats focuses on the ideas of love and fame, both of which he strives for,and how time limits these, through his use of metaphorical language and structure. The poem is a Shakespearean sonnet; it includes three quatrains, which address either love or fame, and a concluding couplet that offers a resolution to the limits of time.
Outline:
Introduction:
-change thesis
Paragraph 1:
-First two quatrains -- fame
-glean'd, teeming, charact'ry -- shortens words, reflects shortened time?
-harvesting -- relates back to not having enough time
-"never live to trace their shadows..." -- time again
** dig deeper into passages
Paragraph 2:
-Third quatrain -- love
-"fair creature of an hour" -- parallels time
-three and a half lines compared to four -- shortened time
** dig deeper into passages
Paragraph 3:
-Resolution in concluding couplet
Monday, September 24, 2012
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Week 3 - Race in Shakespeare
"The languages they use and the social and historical context in which these languages signify are indirect and direct revelations of that power and its limitations." (Literary Theory, 1010)
Othello: She's like a liar gone to burning hell!
'Twas I that killed her!
Emilia: O, the more angel she,
And you the blacker devil!
Othello: She turned to folly, and she was a whore.
Emilia: Thou dost belie her, and thou art a devil
(Othello, Act 5, Scene 2, lines 132-137)
In the play, Othello gets referred to by many offensive names, such as devil (seen above), monster, and filty, among others. Does these names contribute in any way to the story or Othello's character?
The names first begin in Act 1, scene 1 when Iago and Roderigo inform Brabantio that his daughter, Desdemona is with Othello. They refer to Othello as "an old black ram... tupping your white ewe (85-86)" and say that Desdemona and the Moor "are making the beast with two backs (113)" which refers to sexual intercourse as bestial. The use of "beast with two backs" makes it seem as though the act of sex itself is not a problem, but sex with Othello is because of his race. At first, the names seem to be nothing more than a comment on skin color, but towards the end of the play there is a shift.
The names that Othello was once called turn out to be true, in a sense. He turns into the monster, or devil as Emilia says, that killed his wife. These names no longer comment on his race, but on his actual character instead.
Othello: She's like a liar gone to burning hell!
'Twas I that killed her!
Emilia: O, the more angel she,
And you the blacker devil!
Othello: She turned to folly, and she was a whore.
Emilia: Thou dost belie her, and thou art a devil
(Othello, Act 5, Scene 2, lines 132-137)
In the play, Othello gets referred to by many offensive names, such as devil (seen above), monster, and filty, among others. Does these names contribute in any way to the story or Othello's character?
The names first begin in Act 1, scene 1 when Iago and Roderigo inform Brabantio that his daughter, Desdemona is with Othello. They refer to Othello as "an old black ram... tupping your white ewe (85-86)" and say that Desdemona and the Moor "are making the beast with two backs (113)" which refers to sexual intercourse as bestial. The use of "beast with two backs" makes it seem as though the act of sex itself is not a problem, but sex with Othello is because of his race. At first, the names seem to be nothing more than a comment on skin color, but towards the end of the play there is a shift.
The names that Othello was once called turn out to be true, in a sense. He turns into the monster, or devil as Emilia says, that killed his wife. These names no longer comment on his race, but on his actual character instead.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Weekly Blog Response 2
"The low-Other is despised and denied at the level of political organization and social being whilst it is instrumentally constitutive of the shared imaginary repertoires of the dominant culture. This is evidenced by the history of the representation of 'low' entertainment and the carnivalesque..." (Stallybrass, 6)
"Cassio: Dost thou hear, mine honest friend?
Clown: No, I hear not your honest friend: I hear you.
Cassio: Prithee keep up thy quillets. There's a poor
piece of gold for thee. If the gentlewoman that attends
the general be stirring, tell her there's one Cassio
entreats her a little favor of speech. Wilt thou do this?
Clown: She is stirring, sir. If she will stir hither, I shall seem to notify unto her." (Othello, Act 3, scene 1, lines 21-28)
How does Shakespeare portray the low-Other and the treatment of the low-Other in relation to this quote in Othello?
The low-Other in Othello is seen through the Clown; he acts as the entertainment by telling jokes and playing with words. An example of this is seen in the second line of the quote above from Othello. Cassio asks the Clown, "Do you hear, my honest friend?" and the Clown responds that he does not hear Cassio's honest friend, only Cassio. It is through this humor that he acts as the entertainment. Cassio tells him to shut up and pays him to do his tasks. It is apparent through these lines (23-26) that Cassio does not think highly of the Clown, since Cassio is superior to him, and that he only uses the Clown to do his bidding. The beginning of the passage starts friendly enough; Cassio calls him an honest friend. It's when the Clown responds in a way that Cassio does not like that he gets rude, telling him to be quiet. By that use of language, it seems as if Cassio believes he can talk down to him just because he is below him. He then proceeds to pay him gold to give the woman a message, which he probably could've easily done himself. Instead, he has to get someone else to do it for him.
"Cassio: Dost thou hear, mine honest friend?
Clown: No, I hear not your honest friend: I hear you.
Cassio: Prithee keep up thy quillets. There's a poor
piece of gold for thee. If the gentlewoman that attends
the general be stirring, tell her there's one Cassio
entreats her a little favor of speech. Wilt thou do this?
Clown: She is stirring, sir. If she will stir hither, I shall seem to notify unto her." (Othello, Act 3, scene 1, lines 21-28)
How does Shakespeare portray the low-Other and the treatment of the low-Other in relation to this quote in Othello?
The low-Other in Othello is seen through the Clown; he acts as the entertainment by telling jokes and playing with words. An example of this is seen in the second line of the quote above from Othello. Cassio asks the Clown, "Do you hear, my honest friend?" and the Clown responds that he does not hear Cassio's honest friend, only Cassio. It is through this humor that he acts as the entertainment. Cassio tells him to shut up and pays him to do his tasks. It is apparent through these lines (23-26) that Cassio does not think highly of the Clown, since Cassio is superior to him, and that he only uses the Clown to do his bidding. The beginning of the passage starts friendly enough; Cassio calls him an honest friend. It's when the Clown responds in a way that Cassio does not like that he gets rude, telling him to be quiet. By that use of language, it seems as if Cassio believes he can talk down to him just because he is below him. He then proceeds to pay him gold to give the woman a message, which he probably could've easily done himself. Instead, he has to get someone else to do it for him.
Monday, September 3, 2012
Weekly Response 1 - Chapman's Homer by Keats
"Perhaps [the Russian Formalists] most famous general claim is that literary language consists of an act of defamiliarization, by which they mean that such literature presents objects or experiences from such an unusual perspective or in such unconventional and self-conscious language that our habitual, ordinary, rote perceptions of those things are disturbed. We are forced to see things that had become automatic and overly familiar in new ways." (Literary Theory: An Anthology, page 3-4)
"Much have I travell'd in the realms of gold,
And many goodly states and kingdoms seen;
Round many western islands have I been
Which bards in fealty to Apollo hold."
(Lines 1-4)
What evidence does Keats's poem On First Looking into Chapman's Homer lend to the Russian Formalists theory? In other words, when thinking of this theory and analyzing the poem, does their theory seem to ring true?
We can infer from the title that the poem will be about Keats's first experience of reading Chapman's translations of Homer's works. This idea seems pretty straightforward, and one might expect the rest of the poem to work in this way; Keats takes the language, though, and twists it to make it unfamiliar to the audience. Upon reading the first line of this poem for the first time, I had no idea what Keats was talking about. I wasn't sure what he was referring to when he said realms of gold, and reading on, wasn't sure what these many "goodly states and kingdoms seen" were all about. I thought that he actually meant traveling, so I assumed that he had actually seen realms of gold and goodly states and kingdoms. But then I went back to the title and thought about what the poem was actually about, which is reading something for the first time, more specifically, reading Chapman's translations for the first time. And it hit me that if the poem is about reading, then the contents are probably about reading too, and that instead of actually traveling somewhere, Keats probably travelled there in a book and that's where he saw these realms of gold and goodly states and kingdoms. The same rings true for the third and fourth line as well. It seems as if he is saying that he actually went to western islands, but again, he is talking of reading. The language he uses to write of his experience, though, doesn't give the impression of a book, and so the idea is a bit unfamiliar, like the Russian formalists mention. Instead of reading the poem in a straightforward way, we must make inferences and play with the language that is given to us in order to discover what the poem is really about. In other words, we must learn to look at it in new light.
"Much have I travell'd in the realms of gold,
And many goodly states and kingdoms seen;
Round many western islands have I been
Which bards in fealty to Apollo hold."
(Lines 1-4)
What evidence does Keats's poem On First Looking into Chapman's Homer lend to the Russian Formalists theory? In other words, when thinking of this theory and analyzing the poem, does their theory seem to ring true?
We can infer from the title that the poem will be about Keats's first experience of reading Chapman's translations of Homer's works. This idea seems pretty straightforward, and one might expect the rest of the poem to work in this way; Keats takes the language, though, and twists it to make it unfamiliar to the audience. Upon reading the first line of this poem for the first time, I had no idea what Keats was talking about. I wasn't sure what he was referring to when he said realms of gold, and reading on, wasn't sure what these many "goodly states and kingdoms seen" were all about. I thought that he actually meant traveling, so I assumed that he had actually seen realms of gold and goodly states and kingdoms. But then I went back to the title and thought about what the poem was actually about, which is reading something for the first time, more specifically, reading Chapman's translations for the first time. And it hit me that if the poem is about reading, then the contents are probably about reading too, and that instead of actually traveling somewhere, Keats probably travelled there in a book and that's where he saw these realms of gold and goodly states and kingdoms. The same rings true for the third and fourth line as well. It seems as if he is saying that he actually went to western islands, but again, he is talking of reading. The language he uses to write of his experience, though, doesn't give the impression of a book, and so the idea is a bit unfamiliar, like the Russian formalists mention. Instead of reading the poem in a straightforward way, we must make inferences and play with the language that is given to us in order to discover what the poem is really about. In other words, we must learn to look at it in new light.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)