Portfolio

So after our discussion in class yesterday I began to think about reality TV and our culture's obsession with our "feelings". Everyone who has any feeling nowadays now seems to be tagged as "emo" even if they try to get their deep feelings out...but then again there are those that can get across a deep message without being labeled with that term. How do we decide and decipher? Who is "emo" and who isn't? Will any of the artists of our time, the musicians, the modern poets, be remembered 500 years later as Shakespeare has? Will they have impact? Hmm...just something to ponder...

I also found this possessed girl performing Sonnet 94, thought I'd share, mwahaha...don't watch it alone...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW9m38RiB7k&feature=related

Portfolio

Our discussion in class on Tuesday got me thinking about how difficult it is sometimes to study history. You have to take an historical perspective. Forget what you as a modern individual think and try and get into the minds of the people of that time. This is especially difficult I think for the modern capitalist, feminist, individualist, etc.

I have always had what has been dubbed by my friends as a "unique" approach to feminism. I know that is really not what we focus on in our class, or its not supposed to be what we focus on, but it always comes up. Though I appreciate everyone's opinion its difficult for me to sit there and listen to 21st century opinions on issues from the 16th century.

If you truly think about, Thomas More was radical in his attention to his daughters. His value on their education and their opinion. From our reading in cultural history, it looks as though he allowed Margaret to marry a man she loved...these were insanely radical ideas for the time. Yes, the man was not perfect, but there was no way to allow for what is considered by most people to be correct for women these days.

I mean, you compare More to a man like Henry, who is the essence of Britney's Womanizer song...(here, I would link the Youtube video but I don't want to burn any of your tender eyes, lol, so if you want to see it, I'm sure you can find it...*hint: Tudors + Womanizer) or many other men who would beat the women in their lives...recall even Alice tries to bring More to beat Margaret in A Man for All Seasons and he refuses...

To further my invesitigation into More's true treatment of women I went to a source we are familiar with, his friend and ours, Erasmus:

Of More himself Erasmus has left us a wonderful portrait in his famous letter to Ulrich von Hutten dated 23 July, 1519 (Epp. 447). The description is too long to give in full, but some extracts must be made.

He seems born and framed for friendship, and is a most faithful and enduring friend . . .When he finds any sincere and according to his heart, he so delights in their society and conversation as to place in it the principal charm of life . . .In a word, if you want a perfect model of friendship, you will find it in no one better than in More . . .In human affairs there is nothing from which he does not extract enjoyment, even from things that are most serious. If he converses with the learned and judicious, he delights in their talent, if with the ignorant and foolish, he enjoys their stupidity. He is not even offended by professional jesters. With a wonderful dexterity he accommodates himself to every disposition. As a rule, in talking with women, even with his own wife, he is full of jokes and banter. No one is less led by the opinions of the crowd, yet no one departs less from common sense . . . (see Father Bridgett's Life, p. 56-60, for the entire letter).

The important part I found here was the description about More's interaction with women...the author of the article in which this letter was a segment goes on to say that Alice did not always understand the point of More's jokes...maybe he was just too witty for his own time...I don't know...

Portfolio

So, I personally am having a difficult time dissecting and separating all the different "Thomas More"s we are being inundated with. There is the Thomas More from Utopia and that is actually seperated into the author and the character. Then of course there is the Thomas More from the play in cultural history...and then, well then there are the Thomas More's that I am familiar with from previous study (and well, entertainment).

In the following clip, Jeremy Northam, the actor who plays Thomas More in the Showtime series, "The Tudors" discusses Thomas More:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i43WPofCPh8&feature=related

Ok and this link is to another Tudor's clip...I almost PEED MY PANTS, so so emo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdO7FxvMlu8

*Just in case you are not familiar, Jeremy Northam is Thomas More and Jonathan Rhys Meyers is Henry VIII

I am at this point not quite sure which to believe. I assume that the Thomas More from Utopia is the most truthful because it was written by the man himself, but yet I also feel at that point that Thomas More wasn't even quite sure who Thomas More was...then of course More is a saint, and I can't forget nor deny my view of him in that sense...oh, goodness

Portfolio

Wow, watching the Luther movie was pretty...um...intense. Luther was a little emo. It was hard for me to picture that actor having the religious convictions and intentions that the real Martin Luther had. He was a pretty boy, who as Mary Ellen said during our viewing, "was excessively nice to crippled children." I also think the costuming in the film was really distracting. I don't know about anyone else but the Emperor's sideways ball cap look was just hilariously distracting.

Portfolio

So, I was thinking about the section in Castiglione where he talks about courtier women. He says it is simply their goal to be chaste. Castiglione explains well here that it is due to the fact that women carry children, which are the lineage line, that they must be more careful in their sexual acts than men. Whether this seems fair or not, it is true. Women, especially in an age before modern contraception, did have more of a consequence from sex. This brought about a modern idea for me, women often say that they want to be the equals of man. I believe this to be impossible. Men and women are biologically different and nothing will ever change that. It is about pursuing equity not equality. Some may say that is simply a game of semantics, but...

According to dictionary.com:

equality ~ the state of having uniform character

equity ~ the state of being fair and just


I know which I would prefer...but, hey that's probably just me...

I was so enthralled in writing my paper that I forgot to post! Oh no! Well, I thought that the paper topic was really engaging but quite a struggle to write at the same time. I found it quite amusing that as we were writing a paper on translations we ended up talking about Chaucer's Franklin's Tale and Boccaccio's story which were pretty much just translations of the same tale too. I wasn't really expecting that going into the reading so it was a nice tie in.

Portfolio

In Pampinea's tale on the Eighth Day, there are quite a few speeches made by the character of Rinieri which could be considered double entendres. I found this quite hilarious. My friends and I at home often have double entendre contests (seeing who can speak in them for the longets, etc) and I just never really thought of them being used in the context of a book like this, but they were incredibly blatant.