So, I have a bit of catching up to do, and we'll start tonight's uploads with some more Pride and Predjudice.
Today's literature quote comes from Juliet McMaster's Class on page 117:
Women too sometimes have handles to their names, although they could not inherit a peerage or a baronetcy. Lady Catherine de Bourgh would not want us to miss the fine shades in the title 'Lady'.
And from Pride and Prejudice, in chapter 29 page 6:
"Do not make yourself uneasy, my dear cousin, about your apparel. Lady Catherine is far from requiring that elegance of dress in us which becomes herself and her daughter. I could advise you merely to put on whatever of your clothes is superior to the rest--there is no occasion for anything more. Lady Catherine will not think the worse of you for being simply dressed. She likes to have the distinction of rank preserved."
So from what I can tell, it results in the following. IS Lady Catherine really just some ornery old B-word who doesn't deserve her title but just wants it known?
I mean, Lady Catherine literally does almost nothing in the book, except make life harder for Elizabeth with every ounce of mean she can, or flaunt her title and rank in the family to other people so they know how important she is. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to swear in these or not, but I can certainly tell you that LADY Catherine is the farthest thing from it and who deserves to be kicked in the lady parts! I can understand if your proud of who you are, but a lady shouldn't be flaunting her pride around, she should be quietly enjoying everything she has access too, not putting on a big flamboyant show of it. I dunno if it's just me being prejudice myself, but from what I've seen the stereotypical rich or wealthy individual isn't a complete douchebag unless it's a lame movie. Either way, this post is really just to post anger towards the unerring meanness of the witch named Catherine.
Short post tonight, I plan to upload more in the morning, keep posted viewers. ^^
Monday, November 19, 2012
Monday, October 29, 2012
Week 5 (Late) - A Libelous Sentence about Gillian Anderson and Helen Hunt
Title taken from an episode of Family Guy, I'm really just using it cause it's funny and fits todays topic.
(If you want to complain about the title reference, read my post, then go watch the episode. It's Season 7, Episode 6; Tales of a Third Grade Nothing. You'll get it )
Anyways, I know this is really late, but I figure get them done sooner than later. So today's little excerpts are going to be on lesbianism found in writing. Our first excerpt comes from The Literature of Lesbianism, edited by Castle, located on the third and fourth pages:
...But can we blithely categorize as "lesbian" a woman who seems never to have acted on a single erotic desire in her life? Even as her poems bear cryptic witness to urgings of the flesh-that fierce "Intemperance" by which "to be undone / Is dearer than Redemption." - Dickinson took her chastity with her, nunlike, to the grave.
And the quote I'll be borrowing from Othello for this is in Act 1, Scene 3, Line 6 and is said by Brabantio as he talks about his daughter Desdemona:
A maiden never bold;
Of spirit so still and quiet, that her motion
Blush'd at herself; and she, in spite of nature,
Of years, of country, credit, every thing,
To fall in love with what she fear'd to look on!
It is a judgment maim'd and most imperfect
That will confess perfection so could err
Against all rules of nature, and must be driven
To find out practises of cunning hell,
Why this should be. I therefore vouch again
That with some mixtures powerful o'er the blood,
Or with some dram conjured to this effect,
He wrought upon her.
His quote is ironic considering how little Brabantio knows about his daughter, who we know is INCREDIBLY bold and does well to defend her actions. But this raises the question, if the passages or actions of characters were changed, could Desdemona have gotten away as a lesbian in the story?
The fact is, Desdemona ran off with a man her father had never known, and it is with Othello she finds her happiness, but I think if you substituted him with other characters in the right way, Desdemona's choices and actions could be repeated with various characters. It could be another male like Cassio, acting as Othello's sword, or; as more in tune with the theme: Emilia, who is Desdemona's closest friend in the book and whom the wife of the turk trusted with everything. And if that were the case, it'd be like the article said: we can't just categorize her as a "lesbian" then, because she would need to show the same actions to Emilia she did to Othello as it is normally, and even then, it might be considered morally strange to critics. Personally, I'm not one of those people who judge others by their choices, and after reading the article, I agree with what was said about Dickinson, she knew what she was doing and kept her chastity with her throughout. All in all, a possibly awkward topic to speak about, but in the world of what ifs, it definitely exists out there.
One down several missed ones to go. XD See you in the next one folks.
(If you want to complain about the title reference, read my post, then go watch the episode. It's Season 7, Episode 6; Tales of a Third Grade Nothing. You'll get it )
Anyways, I know this is really late, but I figure get them done sooner than later. So today's little excerpts are going to be on lesbianism found in writing. Our first excerpt comes from The Literature of Lesbianism, edited by Castle, located on the third and fourth pages:
...But can we blithely categorize as "lesbian" a woman who seems never to have acted on a single erotic desire in her life? Even as her poems bear cryptic witness to urgings of the flesh-that fierce "Intemperance" by which "to be undone / Is dearer than Redemption." - Dickinson took her chastity with her, nunlike, to the grave.
And the quote I'll be borrowing from Othello for this is in Act 1, Scene 3, Line 6 and is said by Brabantio as he talks about his daughter Desdemona:
A maiden never bold;
Of spirit so still and quiet, that her motion
Blush'd at herself; and she, in spite of nature,
Of years, of country, credit, every thing,
To fall in love with what she fear'd to look on!
It is a judgment maim'd and most imperfect
That will confess perfection so could err
Against all rules of nature, and must be driven
To find out practises of cunning hell,
Why this should be. I therefore vouch again
That with some mixtures powerful o'er the blood,
Or with some dram conjured to this effect,
He wrought upon her.
His quote is ironic considering how little Brabantio knows about his daughter, who we know is INCREDIBLY bold and does well to defend her actions. But this raises the question, if the passages or actions of characters were changed, could Desdemona have gotten away as a lesbian in the story?
The fact is, Desdemona ran off with a man her father had never known, and it is with Othello she finds her happiness, but I think if you substituted him with other characters in the right way, Desdemona's choices and actions could be repeated with various characters. It could be another male like Cassio, acting as Othello's sword, or; as more in tune with the theme: Emilia, who is Desdemona's closest friend in the book and whom the wife of the turk trusted with everything. And if that were the case, it'd be like the article said: we can't just categorize her as a "lesbian" then, because she would need to show the same actions to Emilia she did to Othello as it is normally, and even then, it might be considered morally strange to critics. Personally, I'm not one of those people who judge others by their choices, and after reading the article, I agree with what was said about Dickinson, she knew what she was doing and kept her chastity with her throughout. All in all, a possibly awkward topic to speak about, but in the world of what ifs, it definitely exists out there.
One down several missed ones to go. XD See you in the next one folks.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Week 6- Double Lariat
Title of today's post was taken from a song I like, literally having nothing to do with the rest almost.
Anyways, I skipped last week's post due to illness, I'll post it later, but tonight, I'll be taking two excerpts for today's assignment. The first is from Alex Woloch's "The One vs. the Many" located on page 12 of the excerpt and towards the bottom of page 62.
"The first chapter of Pride and Prejudice obscures the novel's central focus. WIll the narrative continue to depict all the five sisters as a social group or orient itself around Elizabeth, whom Mr. Bennet claims has 'something more of quickness'? This wavering continues a good way into the story. Austen's omniscience allows her to defocalize the novel, so that narrative attention drifts from person to person."
Given that in mind, I checked the first chapter of Pride and Prejudice and found this excerpt that contributes to the first excerpt. This starts at the end of page 3 and goes to page 4.
"But consider your daughters. Only think what an establishment it would be for one of them. Sir William and Lady Lucas are determined to go, merely on that account, for in general, you know, they visit no newcomers. Indeed you must go, for it will be impossible for us to visit him if you do not."
These two passages seem to play off one another if read in order. What I have to wonder is, would the novel be so bad if the novel depicted the girls as a social group like the first passage reads?
I mean, given what we've read so far, with the interaction between sisters, it couldn't be bad to have them spend some more time together. And given that this novel is probably gonna be a bunch of love story and drama, we could use some more interesting interactions between the sisters. The turnabouts and critical points of the novel make things seem to flow smoothly, but you wonder what would happen is they all sync up or continue to branch apart? So far I've read some of this novel and I admit it's been interesting. But for now, I don't have much to go into superb detail, so this will have to wait for now for a better opinion.
Until next time folks. ^^
Anyways, I skipped last week's post due to illness, I'll post it later, but tonight, I'll be taking two excerpts for today's assignment. The first is from Alex Woloch's "The One vs. the Many" located on page 12 of the excerpt and towards the bottom of page 62.
"The first chapter of Pride and Prejudice obscures the novel's central focus. WIll the narrative continue to depict all the five sisters as a social group or orient itself around Elizabeth, whom Mr. Bennet claims has 'something more of quickness'? This wavering continues a good way into the story. Austen's omniscience allows her to defocalize the novel, so that narrative attention drifts from person to person."
Given that in mind, I checked the first chapter of Pride and Prejudice and found this excerpt that contributes to the first excerpt. This starts at the end of page 3 and goes to page 4.
"But consider your daughters. Only think what an establishment it would be for one of them. Sir William and Lady Lucas are determined to go, merely on that account, for in general, you know, they visit no newcomers. Indeed you must go, for it will be impossible for us to visit him if you do not."
These two passages seem to play off one another if read in order. What I have to wonder is, would the novel be so bad if the novel depicted the girls as a social group like the first passage reads?
I mean, given what we've read so far, with the interaction between sisters, it couldn't be bad to have them spend some more time together. And given that this novel is probably gonna be a bunch of love story and drama, we could use some more interesting interactions between the sisters. The turnabouts and critical points of the novel make things seem to flow smoothly, but you wonder what would happen is they all sync up or continue to branch apart? So far I've read some of this novel and I admit it's been interesting. But for now, I don't have much to go into superb detail, so this will have to wait for now for a better opinion.
Until next time folks. ^^
Monday, September 24, 2012
Week 4- Still More Othello
Wow, fourth post in September already, and we've come to yet again talk about Othello. Jeez, hopefully next month we'll get a new choice. Anyways, let's get right into it.
So our first passage comes from Daniel J. Vitkus, and his article titled: Turning Turk in Othello: The Conversion and Damnation of the Moor. Located in the second paragraph on page 18 of the article and page 161 of the Shakespeare Quarterly it was posted in:
We may infer from Iago's comment at 4.2.216 that Othello is a native of Mauritania, but the play makes it clear from the beginning that Othello is or has become a Christian. Shakespeare may have known from Pory's translation of Leo Africanus that some Moors "are Gentiles which worship Idols; other of the sect of Mahumet; some others Christians; and some Iewish in religion."
Along with this, I found the specific passage in Otherllo referred to in the article and will use that with today's post. Located on page 94 in Act 4, Scene 2, Line 216 it reads:
Iago: ...I mean purpose, courage and valor-this night
show it. If thou the next night following enjoy not
Desdemona, take me from this world with treachery
and devise engines for my life.
Roderigo: Well, what is it? Is it within reason and compass?
Iago: Sir, there is especial commission come from
Venice to depute Cassio in Othello's place.
Roderigo: Is that true? Why, then Othello and Desdemona
return again to Venice?
Iago: O no; he goes to Mauritania and taketh
away with him the fair Desdemona, unless his abode
be lingered here by some accident; wherein
none can be so determinate as the removing of
Cassio.
Though the passage confirms the articles point that Othello is a native of Mauritania, why does the later half of the passage seem more like Iago is explaining that Othello is taking Desdemona there for a lovely getaway?
The article made some excellent points about religion, telling how the Moors weren't all associated to the same views; most were, but there were some who saw something different and would pursue that religions views, much like how Othello is. Vitkus might not have been seeing what Shakespeare had intended, but that doesn't change how his points are important. When we look at the passage itself, it's mainly with the last line by Iago that makes me feel like instead of going for some important guidance or political reason, that Othello is just taking Desdemona there to have sex somewhere different or something. It's a bit extreme, but I can't blame how a character talks in a play that was made somewhere near 400 years ago, that would be impossible to ask the author about. Either way, this passage seems more dirty than religious to me than what Vitkus was aiming for, but that could just be me nitpicking.
Well, pretty short and to the point today, but hope you like it. Hopefully in October my posts will get a little more exciting. I know I'm looking forward to it. Until next time then. ^^
So our first passage comes from Daniel J. Vitkus, and his article titled: Turning Turk in Othello: The Conversion and Damnation of the Moor. Located in the second paragraph on page 18 of the article and page 161 of the Shakespeare Quarterly it was posted in:
We may infer from Iago's comment at 4.2.216 that Othello is a native of Mauritania, but the play makes it clear from the beginning that Othello is or has become a Christian. Shakespeare may have known from Pory's translation of Leo Africanus that some Moors "are Gentiles which worship Idols; other of the sect of Mahumet; some others Christians; and some Iewish in religion."
Along with this, I found the specific passage in Otherllo referred to in the article and will use that with today's post. Located on page 94 in Act 4, Scene 2, Line 216 it reads:
Iago: ...I mean purpose, courage and valor-this night
show it. If thou the next night following enjoy not
Desdemona, take me from this world with treachery
and devise engines for my life.
Roderigo: Well, what is it? Is it within reason and compass?
Iago: Sir, there is especial commission come from
Venice to depute Cassio in Othello's place.
Roderigo: Is that true? Why, then Othello and Desdemona
return again to Venice?
Iago: O no; he goes to Mauritania and taketh
away with him the fair Desdemona, unless his abode
be lingered here by some accident; wherein
none can be so determinate as the removing of
Cassio.
Though the passage confirms the articles point that Othello is a native of Mauritania, why does the later half of the passage seem more like Iago is explaining that Othello is taking Desdemona there for a lovely getaway?
The article made some excellent points about religion, telling how the Moors weren't all associated to the same views; most were, but there were some who saw something different and would pursue that religions views, much like how Othello is. Vitkus might not have been seeing what Shakespeare had intended, but that doesn't change how his points are important. When we look at the passage itself, it's mainly with the last line by Iago that makes me feel like instead of going for some important guidance or political reason, that Othello is just taking Desdemona there to have sex somewhere different or something. It's a bit extreme, but I can't blame how a character talks in a play that was made somewhere near 400 years ago, that would be impossible to ask the author about. Either way, this passage seems more dirty than religious to me than what Vitkus was aiming for, but that could just be me nitpicking.
Well, pretty short and to the point today, but hope you like it. Hopefully in October my posts will get a little more exciting. I know I'm looking forward to it. Until next time then. ^^
Monday, September 17, 2012
Week 3- Double Othello
So for today's journal entry, I'll be using Othello again as my main literary source. However, I'm essentially using it for both my sources today. The first is from a review of Othello called Unproper Beds: Race, Adultery, and the Hideousness of Othello, by Michael Neill, appearing on page 385 of Shakespeare Quarterly.
Even more striking is the fact that these images were often designed to draw readers into texts whose bowdlerizing maneuvers aimed, as far as possible, to conceal everything that their frontispieces offer to reveal.
The second quote of course comes from Othello since that is where I keep getting my good points from. Coming today from page 90 in our books, located in Act 4, Scene 2.
Emilia: Alas, Iago, my lord hath so bewhored her,
Thrown such despite and heavy terms upon her,
That true hearts cannot bear it.
This is integral with the first quote because as it indicated with the first passage, they conceal what they intended to reveal earlier. In the passage from Othello, Emilia is telling Iago about the names and words Othello said to Desdemona, but she doesn't explain the whole story to him, so Iago naturally would take Desdemona's side. Depending on the way a person tells a story will determine how it will affect them in the end. How this plays out with future events will only be determined by reading on. Ergo, hiding stuff when telling a story that was revealed earlier does affect the outcome in the end.
Short one today, but I don't know what else to write, so that's it for now. Until next time. ^^
Even more striking is the fact that these images were often designed to draw readers into texts whose bowdlerizing maneuvers aimed, as far as possible, to conceal everything that their frontispieces offer to reveal.
The second quote of course comes from Othello since that is where I keep getting my good points from. Coming today from page 90 in our books, located in Act 4, Scene 2.
Emilia: Alas, Iago, my lord hath so bewhored her,
Thrown such despite and heavy terms upon her,
That true hearts cannot bear it.
This is integral with the first quote because as it indicated with the first passage, they conceal what they intended to reveal earlier. In the passage from Othello, Emilia is telling Iago about the names and words Othello said to Desdemona, but she doesn't explain the whole story to him, so Iago naturally would take Desdemona's side. Depending on the way a person tells a story will determine how it will affect them in the end. How this plays out with future events will only be determined by reading on. Ergo, hiding stuff when telling a story that was revealed earlier does affect the outcome in the end.
Short one today, but I don't know what else to write, so that's it for now. Until next time. ^^
Monday, September 10, 2012
Week 2- Of Gallypots and Cannibals
So the first of today's poem excerpts comes from Jonathan Swift's "The Lady's Dressing Room." I don't have page numbers but it is from lines 31 to 36:
With Puppy Water, Beauty's Help
Distill'd from Tripsy's darling Whelp;
Here Gallypots and Vials plac'd,
Some fill'd with washes, some with Paste,
Some with Pomatum, Paints and Slops,
And Ointments good for scabby Chops.
And for the second excerpt, we again go to Othello. This time in a conversation between Othello himself and the Duke of Venice:
Rough quarries, rocks, and hills whose heads touch heaven,
It was my hint to speak,--such was the process;
And of the Cannibals that each other eat,
The Anthropophagi, and men whose heads
Do grow beneath their shoulders.
I found these two quotes interesting, since they seem to counter one another in terms of the words I put in the title. It makes me wonder if the two could be related in any way, or if comparing gallypots to cannibals is an impossible task?
On one hand, we have the gallypot; which in this passage is used to mean a jar of some sorts. It is also spelled close to the word "gallipot" which is a small pot used by pharmacists to hold medicine. In the passage from poem one, it is used to describe the jars holding various items to clean oneself before returning to a dinner, or a party or some other event to be held, so they are part of the constant quest for beauty, typically sought after by women who have to keep up appearances and care about how they look. Though it can be a vain quest that many undertake, I see it as a piece of illogical insanity, because what everyone calls "beautiful" can vary in any number of ways and make the goal of it almost impossible for others. I don't know how other people view it, but it's just one little dose of insanity in the making when I see these so called gallypots.
Then we have cannibals in the othello excerpt, certifiable crazy people who for one reason or another, consume human flesh to eat. I realize that this isn't the main point of the excerpt, but it was my comparable point and I think it makes sense; cannibalism is just another form of insanity. How or why these people began to partake of human flesh as a meal, I do not know, but I do know that it is something frowned upon by our modern day society, and I'm sure it wasn't all that big either in the time of this poem. It's something that, like the unobtainable goal of everlasting beauty, is beyond a normal person's means to understand and leaves us with many questions. So next time you think about your next haircut or meal, think about just how far some people go with these simple things for their own wants.
There we go, another post down. =( I'm not as happy with this one as I am with my first, but I think it still makes a good point to think about, which is what I want. Until next time then, later viewers.
With Puppy Water, Beauty's Help
Distill'd from Tripsy's darling Whelp;
Here Gallypots and Vials plac'd,
Some fill'd with washes, some with Paste,
Some with Pomatum, Paints and Slops,
And Ointments good for scabby Chops.
And for the second excerpt, we again go to Othello. This time in a conversation between Othello himself and the Duke of Venice:
Rough quarries, rocks, and hills whose heads touch heaven,
It was my hint to speak,--such was the process;
And of the Cannibals that each other eat,
The Anthropophagi, and men whose heads
Do grow beneath their shoulders.
I found these two quotes interesting, since they seem to counter one another in terms of the words I put in the title. It makes me wonder if the two could be related in any way, or if comparing gallypots to cannibals is an impossible task?
On one hand, we have the gallypot; which in this passage is used to mean a jar of some sorts. It is also spelled close to the word "gallipot" which is a small pot used by pharmacists to hold medicine. In the passage from poem one, it is used to describe the jars holding various items to clean oneself before returning to a dinner, or a party or some other event to be held, so they are part of the constant quest for beauty, typically sought after by women who have to keep up appearances and care about how they look. Though it can be a vain quest that many undertake, I see it as a piece of illogical insanity, because what everyone calls "beautiful" can vary in any number of ways and make the goal of it almost impossible for others. I don't know how other people view it, but it's just one little dose of insanity in the making when I see these so called gallypots.
Then we have cannibals in the othello excerpt, certifiable crazy people who for one reason or another, consume human flesh to eat. I realize that this isn't the main point of the excerpt, but it was my comparable point and I think it makes sense; cannibalism is just another form of insanity. How or why these people began to partake of human flesh as a meal, I do not know, but I do know that it is something frowned upon by our modern day society, and I'm sure it wasn't all that big either in the time of this poem. It's something that, like the unobtainable goal of everlasting beauty, is beyond a normal person's means to understand and leaves us with many questions. So next time you think about your next haircut or meal, think about just how far some people go with these simple things for their own wants.
There we go, another post down. =( I'm not as happy with this one as I am with my first, but I think it still makes a good point to think about, which is what I want. Until next time then, later viewers.
Monday, September 3, 2012
Week 1 Response- The Joy In Question
My first quote is taken from Wordsworth's poem "Nuns Fret Not at Their Convent's Narrow Room" on page 727.
"Have forfeited their ancient English dower
Of inward happiness. We are selfish men;
Oh! raise us up, return to us again;
And give us manners, virtue, freedom, power."
And my second quote shall be taken from William Shakespeare's "Othello", towards the beginning on pages 8 and 9, spoken through the character Iago.
"...Though that his joy be joy,
Yet throw such changes of vexation on't
As it may lose some color."
I've looked over both these passages and it makes me wonder: Is joy a necessary thing for all people in life, or do some give it up for what they must do?
Taking a look at the first quote, Wordsworth appears to be using this passage to describe how the nuns he is describing relinquish their less than holy ideals and wants in order to carry out their duty as women of god's work, then decrees men as selfish creatures of want, then asks for redemption on our part. Though I agree not everyone is the purest cuts of the cloth, I don't think it's wrong to demonize everyone; I believe that yes, I'm better than some people, but at the same time, I know I'm worse than others. I'll admit that freely, but I wonder how others think of themselves. The other quote takes place in a conversation between Iago and Roderigo, where Iago tells the venetian gentleman about his own goals and reasons for following Othello, then tells him of a plan which appears to be demonizing the father of Othello's wife, to cause confusion and trouble in the royal house so that even the man's joy seems rather dull. I've always had trouble understanding Shakespearian events, but I do know back-stabbing selfishness when I see it, and Iago's spewing it out here. An interesting take on happiness in both forms with these two quotes that is truly curious.
Whether or not someone has compared the two before, I can say this about them; one does a good job for the other. Wordsworth's quote about men being selfish creatures of the want is a good description for Iago in this part, who has his own plans and desires that we will certainly see later in the acts to follow. Iago may have his reasons, but he certainly isn't proving to be a better person than Othello within these first few pages, so giving him freedom and power like in Wordsworth's passage might be a bit of a bad idea. Either way, I find that joy is lopsided in these two passages; whereas one would give it up in the name of duty and grace, and the other would try to ruin the happiness of another to one's own means. The different ways different people think can be fascinatingly reflected when you put them close together.
Well, that's my post for this week. More to follow and I hope you like this one on my opinion. See you all next time.
"Have forfeited their ancient English dower
Of inward happiness. We are selfish men;
Oh! raise us up, return to us again;
And give us manners, virtue, freedom, power."
And my second quote shall be taken from William Shakespeare's "Othello", towards the beginning on pages 8 and 9, spoken through the character Iago.
"...Though that his joy be joy,
Yet throw such changes of vexation on't
As it may lose some color."
I've looked over both these passages and it makes me wonder: Is joy a necessary thing for all people in life, or do some give it up for what they must do?
Taking a look at the first quote, Wordsworth appears to be using this passage to describe how the nuns he is describing relinquish their less than holy ideals and wants in order to carry out their duty as women of god's work, then decrees men as selfish creatures of want, then asks for redemption on our part. Though I agree not everyone is the purest cuts of the cloth, I don't think it's wrong to demonize everyone; I believe that yes, I'm better than some people, but at the same time, I know I'm worse than others. I'll admit that freely, but I wonder how others think of themselves. The other quote takes place in a conversation between Iago and Roderigo, where Iago tells the venetian gentleman about his own goals and reasons for following Othello, then tells him of a plan which appears to be demonizing the father of Othello's wife, to cause confusion and trouble in the royal house so that even the man's joy seems rather dull. I've always had trouble understanding Shakespearian events, but I do know back-stabbing selfishness when I see it, and Iago's spewing it out here. An interesting take on happiness in both forms with these two quotes that is truly curious.
Whether or not someone has compared the two before, I can say this about them; one does a good job for the other. Wordsworth's quote about men being selfish creatures of the want is a good description for Iago in this part, who has his own plans and desires that we will certainly see later in the acts to follow. Iago may have his reasons, but he certainly isn't proving to be a better person than Othello within these first few pages, so giving him freedom and power like in Wordsworth's passage might be a bit of a bad idea. Either way, I find that joy is lopsided in these two passages; whereas one would give it up in the name of duty and grace, and the other would try to ruin the happiness of another to one's own means. The different ways different people think can be fascinatingly reflected when you put them close together.
Well, that's my post for this week. More to follow and I hope you like this one on my opinion. See you all next time.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)