another poem

Rising for the wake of night,

The scent of wine pours over light;

And through the stems of crystal wares,

Comes the moment pistillum bares.

 

Michael

Kierkegaard’s Pseudonyms’ Perspectives on the “Average” People

In terms of religious development, Kierkegaard’s pseudonyms Johannes de Silentio in Fear and Trembling and Anti-Climacus in The Sickness Unto Death perceive the average person to be greatly lacking, in fact, to have not even the slightest grasp of what it means to develop religiously.

It is clear that for Kierkegaard as Johannes de Silentio there are a large number of people who never move beyond living “absorbed in worldly sorrow and joy” (FT, 34) that as Anti-Clamicus states is deceptive and causes many to live a life wasted, since they never go beyond the “joys and sorrows” to “become conscious of being destined as spirit”(SD, 26), which he states causes many to confuse their despair for “so-called security, contentment with light, etc.” (SD, 26). De Silentio equates this contentment with the average persons’ being “wallflowers who do not join in the dance” (FT, 34).

Both of Kierkegaard’s pseudonyms, based on what I have stated, hold the view that most people never bring their lives beyond the “everything else” (SD, 27) of the world and to the “most blessed of thoughts” (SD, 27): “that there is a God and that ‘he’, he himself, his self, exists before this God” (SD, 27). This is, in Anti-Clamicus’ view, because the average person never acknowledges their despair enough to find the “infinite benefaction” (SD, 27) and in Johannes de Silentio’s view, because the average person never brings himself beyond the “brutish stupor that gawks at existence” (FT, 32).

Although Kierkegaard uses both pseudonyms to critique the religious development of the average person, there is a minor contrast between the two portraits he paints. As Johannes de Silentio, Kierkegaard states that people “abandon themselves”(FT, 32) for the world around them; however, as Anti-Climacus, Kierkegaard agrees that people are “engrossed in everything else” (SD, 27) but shows average people as not abandoning themselves, rather misinterpreting their condition for a more desirable one: “contentment” (SD, 26). More simply, in one critique Kierkegaard says people tend to forget themselves and evaluate the world around them, wrongfully; and in the other critique Kierkegaard states that people confuse themselves on their condition. This difference could well be a minor detail, but it appears to be the largest difference between the two pseudonyms, and their views of the average man.

To put things in my own words, what Kierkegaard says with both voices is that in terms of religious development, the average man has not even begun to develop beyond what was given to him at birth. The average man is not willing, not able rather, to remove himself from the wall to attempt to do the dance. What man does instead is give different, simpler names to what he does not comprehend and allows those over-simplified answers, pleasing answers take care of themselves while he goes and lives in the emotional, less-respectable world that Kierkegaard regards as hardly even living.

 

Works Cited

 

Kierkegaard, Søren. Fear and Trembling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Kierkegaard, Soren. Despair Is the Sickness unto Death.\

 

Michael

‘haiku’ 1

Your mascara ran

down the hall and out the door

not coming back soon

-30 July 2009

Went looking to see what I had lying around on my computer and I still like this so it’s on here.

Michael

What is a boy to do?

An old poem from last semester, rewritten:

How a leaf set sail,

[about an autumn,]

drifting without haste—

[as a schooner meanders about whispering seas,]

To scatter over a mottled landscape,

[wander through]

Speaking in child’s cursive,—

[with somber lightness]

—A live(ly) mosaic with death(ly) in-sight.

I am beginning to wonder and worry about my own artistic abilities. I’ve been growing up feeling a constantly necessity to find accomplishment in writing, and art in general. But I still remain uncertain of my own direction. What if I go the wrong direction? How am I to know? I see people around me who are incredibly intrigued by what they are doing: they read and write with faith in their passion. I don’t know if I have that. All I seem to have is a constant wonder of what am I doing? I need to find that inspiration that will make me want something so bad that I can’t be without it. It has been a strange semester so far and I’ve seen myself lacking-personally as a person who’s interested in what he’s doing, but I hope to see a change happen. I may even begin using this again, like I am now but better. I say that a lot but this time I mean it. I will also write new things, not just take a line that destroys the poem thematically and call it a new piece.

Take care

Michael

Feminism in Glaspell’s Trifles

Susan Glaspell’s Trifles is an early feminist play emphasizing women’s necessity to come together into a community[1] to overcome the patriarchal social system. The play offers both a critique of gender role and a critical analysis of coverture[2].

Glaspell based the play off of a murder trial she covered as a reporter in Davenport, Iowa. In the original trial, the murder weapon was an ax struck against man’s head twice, but in Trifles Glaspell gives the ax to a young boy, who kills Mrs. Peter’s cat, “when [she] was a girl” (Glaspell: 360). Glaspell’s choice to move the act of using an ax to a male character is an attempt to create a dichotomy between men and women. She creates social normality where men are the ones who use axes, since they are the dominant-violent figures, while women are ones who have no business with an ax, since all ax-related needs in a woman’s life is taken care of by her big, strong man. The separate gender roles on display with the ax are also on display through how the women kept in the kitchen of the home—the private-sphere, where women belong—and the men went all through the property—placing them in the public-sphere, where communities and camaraderie exists.

As the men search for evidence of the murder around the house, the women discuss what the men would call ‘trifles’ and disclose a great amount of information to the audience on the farmer’s wife being held as a suspect. The woman being held, Minnie Foster Wright, a woman whose first “name is ‘derived from the German word for love’ (Alkalay-Gut 1995: 72)” (Ozieblo: 67) and maiden name “is resonant of care and nurture” (ibid.: 67). While her married name, “an ironical pun on her rights under the law and on that old dream of finding a ‘Mr. Right” (ibid.: 67), is an objection to coverture and women’s right to be more than just a maternal fixture to be possessed by a man.

The women, Mrs. Hale, a farmer’s wife, and Mrs. Peters, who is “married to the law” (Op. cit. 361), slowly piece together Minnie’s case and “like quilters, patch together the scenario of her life and of her guilt” (Ben-Zvi: 34). As a pair the women become stronger than just one woman can be when dealing with the male dominant voice and the women move from Mrs. Hale’s “just pulling out a stitch or two that’s not sewed very good” (Glaspell: 358) to concealing evidence from the men in the end, as a pair, feeling the empowerment that comes with seeing that someone else shares your problems and being able to come together. Dr. Jenny Spencer, in conversation, said that she speculated that after the play the women would have formed a bond that would allow them to go to one another later because they have together seen that other women deal with the same struggle that they do, thus forming a relationship beyond that with their husbands. The women see their value to one another and “not—just” (ibid.: 361) as possessions of men, as displayed by their few, demeaning interactions with the men who are not concerned with whether “[Minnie] was going to quilt it or just knot it!” (ibid.: 358). The women would come to be a community, where they could find comfort within one another and where that Minnie Foster was going to knot it is significant.

Mrs. Hale tells Mr. Henderson, the county attorney in the public-sphere, in the last line of the play, an important element of the play: that Minnie was going to “knot it” (ibid.: 361). The value of whether Minnie was going to knot it or quilt it did not initially appear to me and had to be developed through conversation with Dr. Ernest Gallo, professor of English and husband of an avid quilter, Dr. Alexandrina Deschamps, professor of Women Studies, and the previously stated Dr. Jenny Spencer. As Dr. Gallo said, “[Men] don’t give a damn about quilts,” and they do not concern themselves with the women beyond being possessions used to humor themselves. The men’s , Mr. Wright’s in particular, neglect of women’s need to be more than just housewives is shown in the certainty that Minnie was going to ‘knot it’ since her domesticated lifestyle did not allow her the relationship necessary to quilt, an activity that required more than one woman to be done. Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters together are able to quilt the story of Minnie Foster and Mr. Wright into the story of a woman who is unable to quilt and must resort to knotting, since it can be done alone. Minnie’s necessity to knot was as Dr. Deschamps said, “[she] seized to be [her] own person.”  Mr. Wright’s possession of Minnie is, as stated before, coverture, where she became a part of her husband and gave up her own voice. Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters do not allow the same to happen to them and choose the “power that comes from choice—the choice of silence” (Ozieblo: 66). The women make “the choice of silence” (ibid.: 66), a choice that could not have been made by either of them if they had not come together to form a relationship and separate themselves from their husbands. In Mrs. Hale and Peter’s formation of a community, they see their ability to be more than just wives, and see the immediate benefit of empowerment: that as women they can see themselves as more than just “married to the law” (Glaspell: 361) or in Mrs. Hale’s case she can see herself as more than just a housewife who “doesn’t like [Minnie’s house] much” (ibid.: 359) because it is discomforting for her to venture outside of her husband’s own kitchen.

Women’s necessity to form a community to create feministic change is almost explicitly stated in Minnie’s inability to quilt, and also, in the first lines of the play where the women are hesitant to come into Mr. Wright’s home, where they may step over the boundaries of what is socially acceptable. Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale do not have to explain their hesitance when Mrs. Peters “(after taking a step forward)” says, “I’m not—cold” (ibid.: 354), but it is not a stretch to say it is because they are not comfortable coming into another’s private-sphere, where women for the most part reside, and critiquing a woman’s character. At first, the women are separate women, only aware of the discomfort that comes with having overstepped their boundaries in coming to the Wright’s, but develop the ability to quilt as they develop the ability to bond. Not only do the two concepts, community and coverture, both appear in the story, but they come together into one idea: women must overcome the coverture, where they only belong in the private-sphere of their male’s life. Women must use the freedom of having overcome that boundary to come into the public-sphere to create a community, the most necessary boundary to be passed to reach the goal of choice, even if their only choice is that “of silence” (Ozieblo: 66).

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Ben-Zvi, Linda, Ed. Susan Glaspell: Essays on Her Theater and Fiction. Ann Arbor:

The University of Michigan Press, 1995.

Glaspell, Susan. “Trifles.” American Drama: Colonial to Contemporary. Comp. and Ed.

Stephen Watt and Gary A Richardson. Mason: Cengage, 2003. 354-361

Humm, Maggie. The Dictionary of Feminist Theory. Columbus: Ohio State University

Press, 1990.

Ozieblo, Barbara, and Jerry Dickey. Susan Glaspell and Sophie Treadwell. London:           Routledge, 2008.

Waterman, Arthur E. Susan Glaspell. New York: Twayne, 1966.

 

---

[1] “Feminist theory defines community as a type of relationship — a sense of shared and warm identity between individual women” (Humm: 33).

[2] Dr. Alexandrina Deschamp defined coverture as being when women “seized to be [their] own person” and became property of their husband.

I haven’t written in here, or in general, in so long that it’s a nice feeling to try it out once again. I just finished this essay for my Modern American Drama class and thought, “Hey, throw it on there.”

Michael

The Worlds That We See

People have always fascinated me, though recently I’ve become a sucker for the fictional character much more than the fellow being who i can stare in the eyes. I am wondering now why this is and hope to by the end of this entry to have a firm grasp on my own interaction with them and why I like this more. There’s a hunch in my mind that it’s because I like to be in control. In this “real” word, which I use sort of as slang for what we all share as a reality, everything is taking on different meanings and values due to this whole dynamic structure of everyone’s perspectives and experiences. While, I on the other hand, can read a book and every action and motion is directly a result of how perceived the moment before. One could argue that whether it’s in the world around me or in the book I’m reading it’s still my perception making all the value but I think there’s much more to this in the element of involving other persons’ realities.

My goal for the week: to discover the value that’s inside everyone else’s own realities and to embrace them as my own.

After having not written for a long time it feels good to come here and just put down a few words, even if they are poorly structured and lack an actual point.

Michael

end of the semester

I’ve lucked out. I only have one large essay and a few exams left, practically nothing compared to many students. Only one problem: the essay is 65% of a grade and I can’t even make a proper outline– I’m losing my mind over this. I’ve never failed so hard in my life. But, oh well, two more weeks to work on this.

I made a twitter… discontentment makes strange things happen. We’ll see if i can continually use it for long; hopefully it doesn’t end up like my blog and only written on like this. Once summer begins man, maybe I’ll be better but right now I suck.

By the way, I ended up publishing something in the undergraduate literary journal but I noticed a flaw to my piece after it had already been sent to the press. There’s my first publishing experience, sweet.

Michael

A fresh idea to come.

It has recently become clear to me that I’m very good at very little.

Exhibit A: As we speak I’m avoiding phonology and ignoring my physics homework. 

Exhibit B: The list on my blog of the months and how many posts I’ve done & number of views.

So, I’ve decided that this summer, once I’m done with finals, I shall begin a second blog. My second blog will be a blog discussing books and my review of them. I am in a no way a literary critic or even capable to judge literature with a solid opinion, but I do one thing that works for this idea: have the ability to form opinions and support them with validity. I may even just begin giving myself essay prompt questions which I will post then writing the essay. We shall see, but I am excited. I hope it’ll help me get more into reading consistently and also get something going that will get others discussing their ideas with me.

I know, I could just join a book club, and I just may, but for now I like the idea of this.

Michael

The Pitiful Story of Othello: Suffer & Redemption

            With the first line of Shakespeare’s Othello, “Tush, never tell me!” begins the development of a major idea through to the end of Act V: the power of storytelling. Without a doubt, the largest and most powerful story told is done by Shakespeare, with his story of the tragedy of the moor of Venice. Though, inside Shakespeare’s Othello there are numerous other stories, that when told, combine powers and become able to take down the “valiant Moor,” Othello.

            From those lines, “Tush, never tell me,” “a gulled gentleman”, Roderigo, comes to show he would rather remain unknowing than hearing a story, a story which as far as I—and possibly Roderigo—know as only having validity in its being conceived as a story. Just the notion and possibility of what could be told is enough to make Roderigo tell Iago he does not want to be told, which may have been the last decent decision involved with a story to be made in the play.

            Before Othello’s story is told by Shakespeare, before it is the tragedy of the Moor of Venice, his story is accused of being “drugs and medicines of motion,” by Brabantio when the story “hast enchanted [his daughter]”, Desdemona. Even the Duke agrees that Othello’s story “would win [his] daughter too.” So, up to this point Othello’s tale of “suffer” and “redemption” has aided him in his relationships, to both: his new wife, Desdemona, and his Duke, who is willing to overlook Othello and Desdemona’s unlawful marriage.

            Othello’s aid in personal stature by the power of story finds its first antithesis in Act III, as Iago dangle’s above Othello’s head an untold story that is so well performed that Othello, the black magician of storytelling thus far, wishes to “by heaven… know thy thoughts!” It appears that Othello has met his match in telling a powerful story, but Othello “know[s] [Iago]’rt full of love and honesty”—bringing weight to Iago words before he gives them breath—which makes Iago’s quasi-mockery of a story impact Othello very heavily. These heavy words given breath by Iago, and those not given breath, bring Othello a fear of the untold and make him ask of himself, “Why did I marry?” —A question that would have never been thought of without such an unknown-abyss being arisen in his thoughts of Desdemona.

            After Othello has heard Iago’s “exceeding honesty” about Cassio, Desdemona, and her having “deceiv[ed] her father” in marrying, Othello brings a very symbolic story in the play. One which before his talking to Iago and his having found that Desdemona did not have the Handkerchief he gave her “about [her]” may have come out in a very different manner. He tells her how his mother had received the handkerchief from an Egyptian charmer, who told her a story that “while she kept it, / ‘Twould make her amiable and [able to] subdue [Othello’s] father/ Entirely to her love;” though, of how if she lost it, “his spirits should hunt/ After new fancies.” Whether this story is fiction or not, no other than Othello could know. Whether the handkerchief was “dyed in mummy which the skillful/ Conserved of maidens’ hearts”, is not to be told either; but how Desdemona responds to his tale of chastity and exotic heritage is to be seen by Othello.

            From the tale of the Handkerchief, and persuasive unpleasantries with Othello, Desdemona becomes very afraid to “displease him” and begins speaking of her death to Emilia, the wife of Iago. As Desdemona speaks of death, she brings a story of mother’s maid, Barbary. “She was in love; and he she loved proved mad/ And did forsake her.” As Barbary died she sang a song, “Willow”, which is now the song that “will not go from [Desdemona’s] mind.” Her story of Barbary, the song, and their duet with death tells a foreshadowing tale of how Desdemona will pay “a great price for a small vice”. Although Desdemona “in troth… wouldst not” “do such a deed for all the world”, she pays the “great price” for the “small vice”, and Othello ends her story.

            As the last lines are spoken by Lodovico, a “nobel Venetian”, to Iago, he speaks of the relationship of “heavy act with heavy heart”.  This relationship comes in how he must go back to Venice to tell the story of Othello, which has now taken a new appearance as Emilia tells the true story of her husband and ties together all ends to bring The Tragedy of Othello the Moor of Venice. A tale that is still full of “suffer” and “redemption”, though now is a story that will not be capable of receiving Desdemona’s pity.

---

I.i.1

I.iii.47

“The Name of the Actors” page

I.ii.74-5

I.ii.63

I.iii.171

I.iii.158

I.iii.138

III.iii.162

III.iii.119

III.iii.242

III.iii.258

III.iii.205

III.iv.53

III.iv.58-60

III.iv.62-3

III.iv.74-5

IV.iii.17

IV.iii.27-8

IV.iii.28

IV.iii.31

IV.iii.68-9

IV.iii.70

IV.iii.67

“The Names of the Actors” page

V.ii.371

 

I did finish that paper on Easter weekend, thought I’d throw it on since I’m bored. I’m going to write a legit entry soon. I actually look forward to it quite a bit. I need to figure out this blogging thing. See what I can do with it. I may begin doing things like this over the summer, just making small assignments for myself, oh boy!

Michael

Home for Easter

I find it strange how I never go on my blog while at school, but I also don’t open Safari at school, which is the browser I use solely for blogging.

Well, obviously, I am home right now… procrastinating a paper about Othello… good times.

Thought I’d throw something in here and see what it does for me in my ability to actually sit down and get some work done.

I miss legit blogging, being creative, and writing in my free time. Lately my free time is filled with Physics, Philosophy, and reading Shakespeare (or about Shakespeare).

Or if I’m not doing work, usually, I’m making up my own “The Way I See It #” cups based off Starbuck’s winning team of quotes. Although, mine usually end in shenanigans and offensive remarks about everything in the world.

Good times

Michael