The Characters of the Tempest Walk into a Bar

I don't know where to begin. The clowns of the play Stephano and Trinculo kept me laughing as did drunk Caliban. Prospero's controlling nature still unnerves me and Miranda's innocence is touching. Acts IV and V of this play had me rooting for Miranda and Ferdinand and only them. While I don't dislike Stephano and Trinculo, I have a difficult time fully accepting them as anything but drunkards at this point. I have often wondered how powerful Caliban would be if he was sober. Prospero seems to know everything. It is this factor that I will focus on. Prospero is without a doubt a control freak. Not only does he control every aspect of his daughters life but he controls the lives of everyone else on the island. Prospero is a man with a plan. I don't think that he left anything up to chance throughout the whole play. He planned his daughter's marriage to Ferdinand as soon as he knew he'd arrived on the island, who does that?

Prospero knew what he wanted to get out of his 'guests.' He wanted his dukedom back and when the king offered it, Prospero was quick to take it. Honestly, I believe that the king only gave the dukedom back to Prospero because he wanted to get off the island and he was pretty much stuck there until Prospero decided otherwise. As far as Prospero's giving up of his magic goes, I see it as a bargaining tool. He is trying to prove that he has changed and is more worthy of the dukedom. Whether he is trying to prove is to himself or the king, I cannot say. In a way I think that Prospero has realized that he does not need his magic, though that is also speculation.  Prospero is an interesting character and one whose motives could continually be analyzed. I apologize for the short post this week, I hope you enjoyed my ramblings.

Merlin, Fiction verses well Fiction

This post may contain spoilers for anyone who has not yet viewed the first episode of Merlin

Sorry for the late post. The other day, I watched the first episode of BBC's Merlin. As I watched the first episode I found myself comparing the characters to how they are portrayed in the literature.

Uther Pendragon, I had hope for the show when they introduced the King as Uther Pendragon, a name I immediately recognized from the Prose Merlin. I'm not sure what to make of King Uther. I thought he was kind of an idiot  in the Prose Merlin and the show reinforced these beliefs. He just can't take a hint. Really, I could go on talking about Uther for the rest of this post but then we'd never get to Prince Arthur or even Merlin (who is pretty important to the show).

Merlin: In the Prose, Merlin we read for class on Monday, Merlin was old. When I hear the word Merlin I often think of that old guy from Disney's Sword and the Stone, you know, the one with the really long white beard, who speaks in riddles.  However, I was surprised to find that in the show Merlin is young and fairly sane. I found Merlin a lot more likeable in the show than in the Prose, Merlin. Maybe, it's because in Monday's literature Merlin was a creepy old guy trying to as Dr. MB put it deflower a fifteen year old girl. Yeah Merlin has some issues in the show like fighting Prince Arthur (or trying to at least, Merlin was totally cheating not that I felt bad for the prince). Speaking of the Prince...

Prince Arthur: As soon as this jerk entered the scene throwing knives and all in all being a jackass, I found myself silently hoping that it wasn't the King Arthur of legend. Of course, BBC immediately responded by introducing the character as Prince Arthur. I might be a little rusty on my Arthurian stories but isn't King Arthur supposed to be a great guy who is dealt a really bad hand when his wife Guinevere, cheats on his with his best friend Sir Lancelot? Because,  in the show, I'm feeling more bad for Guinevere for eventually having to be married to this jerk. Arthur seems to be this larger than life character who is really just... as Merlin so rightly put it (multiple times)... a prat.

Guinevere: I do not know much about Queen Guinevere as according to legend. However, the show kept implying that she had a thing for Merlin which really confused me. Also, Guinevere more or less came from lower means than what I'd expected of the future Queen of Camelot. It seems to me that the show further implied for Lady Morgana to serve as Prince Arthur's love interest in the show. This whole Guinevere part of the show just has me baffled but she's a likeable enough character.

Lastly, the random witch: At the very being of the episode I felt really bad for the witch, she had just seen her son beheaded. I didn't realize the role she would play in the episode until she vanished in a pile of leaves (?) and then all I could think was shit, she's a witch. Well damn. I still felt bad for her, as creepy as she was. Then she killed that singer and I started getting really really bad vibes from her. At this point I wondered why the show would portray witches in the light that they did. I mean lets face it, Arthur may be the most hated character in the episode but she takes second place pretty easily on creepiness alone. I have spent the whole semester feeling sorry for witches or those accused at least and here is a perfect example of what everyone is so afraid of.

Also, there is a dragon... a talking dragon (wtf?) I felt the dragon kind of came out of no where.

No shit, you're a freaking talking dragon, how could anyone forget you?

A Wicked Revelation

I found it interesting that according to Imperial law, "those who can be cured and made healthy ought not to be put to death but to a lesser punishment" (p. 239). This made me wonder how often one got away with 'witchcraft'. As a class we've decided that the wealthiest members of society were more likely to get away with it. However, as it seems, most of what we have read about follows the lines of crime and punishment (go away Roskonokov, I'm not talking about you). Seriously though, why do we read about the people who were condemned by the crime of being a witch as opposed to the lucky (well as lucky as one could be after being accused of witchcraft) ones? Is it because humans don't have a long attention span? Who are we kidding, if someone offers you two stories which would you choose and why? The first story is about the triumph of good over evil. The second story is about someone who may or may not have done something bad but it doesn't matter whether they did it or not because regardless the charges were dropped because the character paid off the judge... The end. Pick a story any story (just to be clear, by any story I mean of the two listed above... Not ANY story). Yes, there are exceptions, we do read about accused getting off scot free after being found innocent do occur. I'm just wondering why there aren't more stories on it.

Gianfrancesco Pico Della Mirandola's Strix, is a good example of just how convinced some were about witchcraft and just how desperate they were to convince everyone else of its existence. It is basically the story of a learned man who doesn't believe in witchcraft but it then convinced because of something horrible that a witch has done and how could someone who was a witch commit such an evil act? Therefore, it is the duty of the inquisitor to convict everyone suspected of being a witch because as discussed in the pervious chapter it is worse to let one witch escape punishment than to falsely punish an innocent.

"To the Fire! To the Fire! To the Fire!" The world's First S'more and Why We Really Need to Duck Tape Bernardino of Siena's Mouth Shut

Sorry, for the long title...

 I'd like to apologize to my blog group who has no choice but to read this.  I know it's a long post. I'll make it entertaining I promise!

*Note: The following comment contains language not suitable for children*

A pope, a theologian, a preacher, a lawyer, and a judge all  into a pub... I mean church... and accuse a bunch of people of witchcraft flash forward to 1692, when America's first total bitch, Ann Putnam (I do not claim credibility for this comment #ilovethe1880s) accusations led to the death of twenty people in Salem, MA. Ann Putnam, you would have made a great addition to Mean Girls.

Anyway... On to the important stuff...

As a history major and human being when I hear the word theologian I brace myself for the worst. However, most of what was covered in Chapter 4 of Witchcraft in Europe from 400-1700 wasn't as dry as I was afraid it would be. I think Kors and Peters did a fantastic job with this chapter. The introduction quickly caught my interest at the first mention of Dante Alighieri who is my favorite author/epic poet. The mention of Canto 20 of his inferno caused me to stretch my legs and grab my copy of the Divine Comedy from my bookshelf to refresh my memory on Dante's take on sorcery. For those that have not read Dante's Inferno here is a link to Canto 20: http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dante/chap20.html After rereading Inferno 20, I felt that I had a better grasp on this chapter. As Kors and Peters point out Dante's condemnation of sorcery and divination may "reflect general understanding at the turn of the fourteenth century" (Kors and Peters 113). So now that I had been sucked into the chapter, I again braced myself for the primary sources. Let me get something straight, I love love love primary sources. To be honest the only religious text that I have ever read and liked was Jonathan Edwards Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. Theologians just not my thing, sorry.

When Pope Gregory IX started talking about kissing frogs I was hoping that maybe this was some sort of messed up metaphor... maybe the frog represents the devil or something? As I read on I realized that I was mistaken. It wasn't a metaphor... or a simile. So after rereading the first couple sentences I then thought of fairy tales and my little knowledge of Grimm's fairy tales. Even though I haven't read them yet (so excited to though!!!) I know that unlike Disney movies, they don't end well. If you are sensitive to blasphemous language, I suggest you stop reading now and pick up after the letter. Seriously, I recommend you skip this next part. Annoyed and only slightly relevant rants make blogging more fun. I would like to take a moment and write an open letter to Disney:

Dearest Disney,

Why must you lie to children?  First off, this whole happily ever after thing is unrealistic. Also, while I loved those movies and still do, I know that people only randomly burst in to song in High School Musical (and 2 and 3), not in real life... which is kind of a bummer... but not the point! Sometimes things don't work out in life but in your movies everything always works out, what sorcery are you using? I blame you for my Shakespeare obsession. Also, you based Beauty and the beast off of a true story... you left out some very important parts of the story... but for the sake of time I will pick that up in another post. Disney... there is so much more that I wish to say to you.. but alas, time is short and it's almost 12 (noon), speaking of, why did the magic cast on Cinderella end at 12 midnight as opposed to 12 noon? Sorry, not the point. Disney this discussion is not over.

I will end this very humble and polite expression of my thoughts with this. WTF? (I apologize, that was unfeminine of me) but seriously, wtf... why? (again, my bad, I apologize). Regardless of my anger with you, I will continue to watch your movies as they are the essence of my childhood and life is stressful. Also, even though you "borrowed" (lets face it Disney had every intention of giving the ideas back...) many of the plots for your movies, they are entertaining. Rest assured this discussion is not over!

A Dear, (Yet Slightly Angered) Friend

The relevant part of this post continues here: I apologize for my rant... So yes, Pope Gregory is discussing kissing frogs and how blasphemous that is. But once I got past the similarities and very different outcomes of kissing frogs, I found that Pope Gregory was trying to invoke the wrath of God into all.

The theology faculty at the University of Paris brings up a list of 28... yes... 28, ways in which you can achieve your life's dream of becoming an "nefarious, pestiferous, and monstrous abomination." What I got out of this: rumors are running rampant around campus and some people belief that God wants them to practice arts and sorceries to "honor... and please him."  In a way makes as much sense as Martin Luther nailing his 95 point blog post (Renaissance Style- Sorry, Dr. MB) to the church door.

Bernardino of Siena... (I'll try and keep this short and censored but Bernardo got to me a little bit... though I was thoroughly entertained). First off,  Bernardino (cool name by the way), I'm going to quote you on this (yes, this has become another open letter... sorry).

Bernardino,

On page 135, you stated that following, "after I had preached, a multitude of witches and enchanters were accused." Was this reaction intended? It must have been foreseen (oh wait, don't answer that... actually please do. [If this was a trial and you admitted to that your punishment would be... penance for two years or you could call it heresy and risk execution, just saying...] I feel like you knew how these people would react to your speech. Lets do the math: People naturally do not all get a long + you explain to them that witches and enchanters exist = People think back to all the things that have happened to them or people they know + People begin thinking that perhaps my really annoying neighbor is responsible + the knowledge that hey, I can not only destroy this person's reputation but also ensure that I never have to deal with them again = A multitude of people getting accused of witchcraft after your speech. Makes sense to me. Not saying your responsible but actually, yes, I kind of do blame you. If duck tape had been invented yet then someone should have introduced you to it. Also. "Woe is me!"... seriously? You're upset because you started a witch hunt. Also, you just had to mention that " if any man or woman shall go be accused of such things and if any person shall go to their aid, the curse of God will light upon his house and he will suffer for it" (137). So, I'm guessing the whole State Farm Good Neighbor Policy is out then? I know you have no idea what I'm talking about since it doesn't exist yet, just go with me here.

Sincerely,

A Reader of your works

And now, dear, brave reader of this post...

 

I feel this is the only explanation I need for the strangeness of my post.  

What a (K)night

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is written in Middle English. I have some experience with Middle English through the reading of the Canterbury Tales last year. I read through the excerpt twice. The first time, I decided to challenge myself and I only read the original version. I struggled with it but after the first paragraph it got easier. The Middle English started to come back to me and I had fun working on my pronunciation. I read through it a second time I read the translation on the right side of the page. I loved reading Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. I can't help but compare it to what I read of the Canterbury Tales though. I have to admit that I like Sir Gawain and the Green Knight better than what I read of the Canterbury Tales. I have not read Le Morte D'Arthur but it's on my list of things to read in the near future. I like many people do know the story line though. I was absolutely fascinated by the fact that Sir Gawain and the Green Knight  it takes place in Camelot. Camelot is such a fascinating setting. One that has been used over and over again. I'm excited to see what else we uncover together throughout the rest of the semester.

As I was writing this post this movie came to my mind and I couldn't help but include a picture of it in my post.