Shakespeare Behind Bars

Watching Shakespeare Behind Bars really got me to thinking about several aspects of human nature, and of human life and its value. Shakespeare Behind Bars is an amazing documentary because it brings you to learn about the real life behind bars. But, why does it hit home so hard? Is it because, for some reason, we can identify with them?  The viewer is also put in the situation – you want to forgive them as well, but can you? In addition to watching the inmates learn about themselves, we ourselves are learning about ourselves and human fragility of the mind. Admittedly, I never think about the men/women in prison. Sure, I’ve thought about prison, about what it’d be like, about what I’ve seen in movies, but I’ve never really dwelt on that for long. It may sound ridiculous (hello, Captain Obvious), but watching this movie, it struck me that – wow, these are men too. They are human. They’re not just some soulless/mindless bad-to-the-bone barbarians that you often think of when you think of prison. And, to be honest, we (or at least I) lean towards the thought that we are (I am) better than those in prison.  And then you put yourself in their shoes – in their crimes, and later, in prison, and you wonder (in some cases) how you would have reacted differently – if you would have reacted differently. SBB, it seems, wasn’t just a documentary about inmates, but also, on some level, about being human (regardless of the crimes we’ve committed or how trivial. We all want forgiveness for something, we all want to find ourselves, and be better people).

But enough about that – what about the person in charge? The play director? He plays an extraordinarily significant role to these men. My first impression was that all these inmates were like children. They messed up, they are being punished, but they also need to be taught, like this man is doing for them. I see the director as a sort of father figure to them. And yet, at the same time, he isn’t. I admire him for being able to work with these men, through all their issues, helping them find themselves. What I like the most, though, is that he treats the men with respect. He is the teacher (who has not committed these heinous crimes), and yet when he is with them, he is on their level. He does not proclaim superiority, and the men do not disrespect him because he’s “different,” which is what I initially expected.  What’s more, he mentions that “Shakespeare would have loved this group.” This line really hit home, because not only does it fit so perfectly, this line, to the men, would make them feel as though they truly had a purpose, that there was more to just… being in locked up in a cell. Even in prison, they can have a calling (Big G for example, mentoring younger/newer inmates).

What is Perfection, after all?

This reading is so very long,and there are so many points that I want to address but I simply cannot write about all of them. I certainly have a lot of different opinions about how this Utopian society is run. First, I applaud More for the intense detail and thought in which everything is written and portrayed. The Utopian society has definitely given me a lot to chew on, and I can’t decide whether or not I am for or against it.

The first thing that really struck me was the equality that is practically oozing from each principle. All men and women and children are required to work on Agriculture as the first and foremost job, taking a second, more personal job. What I liked about this was that the society must truly work together in order to survive. Men, women, and children are assigned duties based on their physical ability. Clothing is regulated so there is no distinction and discrimination between the people.  Emphasis on equality. Everything is perfect. People are treated equally, there is no discrimination. Everyone wears the same clothing. Everyone is required to learn a second trade, society continues almost flawlessly.

The moral principles of this society are truly amazing. The way the justice system is created, the way slaves are “enslaved” because of their offenses, and yet their children are not born into slavery. I like the disregard (and disgust) the Utopians show towards material objects, for example, why should a small gem be of any importance when the greatest gem is up in the sky?

As much as I enjoy all these principles however, I can’t shake a feeling of discomfort at this whole idea of Utopia. I don’t much like how everything appears the same. But is this discomfort because I come from a society that places heavy emphasis on being unique and asserting individuality? Utopia is one “perfect,” society, but wouldn’t it be boring?  What is perfection, after all? Is it a society that runs smoothly, with no problems? Can it be a perfect society if the people are unhappy? Then again, the Utopians see happiness differently.  But to me, I see perfection in the presence of “flaws.” I think that is the only thing that truly bothers me about the Utopian society: the lack of individuality. Perfection should be an integration of this Utopian society morals and principles, and what we have now – that is, the assertion of individuality – but also with an acceptance, appreciation, and love for all forms of individuality and differences among people. What do you think? What is your idea of perfection, and how would you create your own Utopian society? I think this is a project I would definitely like to spend more time on - to write my own "Utopia."

For Glory, God, and Gold, And the Virginia Company!

As soon as I turned to the page, I couldn't get this out of my head. Michael Drayton's Ode to the Virginian Voyage is a classic advertisement of the expedition of the Virginia Company. Tales and promises of heroic deeds, gold, pearls, adventure, a true paradise!
In this ode, the form is pretty simple. Each stanza has six lines - 1 rhymes with 5, 2 with 6, and 3 and 4 are a set. However, there is one stanza that doesn't exactly fit, and I'm here to ruminate on why:

"And cheerfully at sea,
Success you still entice,
   To get the pearl and gold,
   And ours to hold,
Virginia,
Earth's only paradise,"

Line 5 here violates the same pattern as the other stanzas. There are several reasons I think why this doesn't exactly fit the same format as all the other stanzas. My first impulse is to suggest that Virginia does not fit the form in order to place special emphasis on it - after all, it is Earth's only paradise. A second less plausible reasoning would be to suggest that Drayton simply lost focus. But perhaps I'm missing something? Something "lost in translation," that is, in the pronunciation of the word. This is where the "Pocahontas" clip above comes in: "On the beaches of Virginny, There's diamonds like debris." Was Virginia pronounced differently before, and therefore rhyme with "sea?" Perhaps it was called "Virginia" as we say now, but "Virginny" was the name bestowed on it by enthusiasts?
What do you think?

Thoughts on "The Flea"

This is not a rumination, but rather a call for interpretations and thoughts. :)
There's something bothering me about the typical interpretation of "The Flea." I'm here to offer a different perspective. So we've covered the erotic and sex-implications of the flea, the "mingling" of two bloods, and various other images. Because of this, we are prone to say immediately that the two lovers did, in fact, commit the act. I would beg to differ.

"Mark but this flea, and mark in this,
How little that which though deniest me is;
Me it sucked first, and now sucks thee,
And in this flea our two bloods mingled be;
Thou know'st that this cannot be said
A sin, or shame, or loss of maidenhead,
    Yet this enjoys before it woo,
    And pampered swells with one blood made of two,
    And this, alas, is more than we would do."

Line two has the key word "deniest." This implies that the lover is denying the narrator something - but what? Something as trivial as what this flea has just done - bitten "me," then, "you." He is trying to convince his lover to have sex with him, that it's not as grave as she perhaps thinks. He also implies that the act would end with "one blood made of two," that the act is to create another being, but "this, alas, is more than we would do."

"Oh say, three lives in one flea spare,
Where we almost, nay more than married are.
This flea is you and I, and this
Our marriage bed and marriage temple is;
Though parents grudge, and you, we are met,
And cloistered in these living walls of jet.
    Though use make you apt to kill me,
    Let not to that, self-murder added be,
    And sacrilege, three sins in killing three."

-- But here, in this flea, our blood is already mingled! See, it is nothing more than this. In this flea, we are more than married! -- so it would not be such a big deal to have sex. "though use make you apt to kill me." this phrase implies that he is used to being denied, and the fact that she is denying him is killing him.

"Cruel and sudden, hast thou since
Purpled thy nail in blood of innocence?
Wherein could this flea guilty be,
Except in that drop which it sucked from thee?
Yet thou triumph'st, and say'st that thou
Find'st not thy self nor me in the weaker now;
    'Tis true; then learn how false fears be:
    Just so much honor, when thou yield'st to me,
    Will waste, as this flea's death took life from thee."

This stanza implies that she continues to deny him - metaphorically killing the flea, cruel and sudden. But how could the flea be guilty, if it only sucked one drop (purpled thy nail in the blood of innocence)? Therefore, she has killed an innocent thing. But she triumphs over this, in denying him - It seems to him that she believes she has become stronger, gained honor, in denying him. That, or that even if they do not have sex, neither of them are weaker because of it. But his final logic is this: Just so much honor, when thou yield'st to me, will waste, as this flea's death took life from thee." Essentially saying that she would not lose any honor in yielding to him.
.
.
.
.
.
(Of course, I could take all this back and say that they have committed the act, and he's trying to tell her that it's not a big deal that she's lost her innocence, and that she is no less honorable, that neither of them are weaker because of the act, and that in the end, it is nothing more than the bite of a flea in which their two bloods have mingled.)

What are your thoughts?

Give them thy fingers, me thy lips to kiss!

This is by far my favorite sonnet, but that’s just because I’m a pianist. When I first read this sonnet (a loooong time ago), I fell in love with it. It was Shakespeare. It was about music. It was about a musician. And it was about the narrator falling in love with the performer.

To summarize, it is about a woman playing a keyboard instrument (likely a clavichord or virginal). The narrator shows his jealousy of the keys because they are able to touch her fingers, but he concludes that he would rather kiss her lips. In this sonnet, Shakespeare uses a lot of imagery that can be taken various ways. However, I’d like to focus on just one word, “jacks,” on line 5. The word “jacks” has a lot of definitions, like a name for random men, like a car-jack, like the game… Out of curiosity, I checked wikipedia - it translated this line to imply there were other men present, dancing to the music the woman was playing, and later “kiss the tender inward of thy hand.” However, I interpret “jacks” to be the keys of the virginal. The first thing that would give this away is the “kiss the tender inward.” Wouldn’t it be more proper to kiss the back of the hand? Other clues are that Shakespeare only ever speaks about the keys of the virginal – the blessed wood (line 2), chips (a common term for keys at the time, line 10), dead wood (last line), and of course, frequent mention of fingers. I'm curious to know what others think - are the "jacks" that Shakespeare refers to keys of the virginal, or do you think they are something else? 

How oft, when thou, my music, music play'st,
Upon that blessed wood whose motion sounds
With thy sweet fingers, when thou gently sway'st
The wiry concord that mine ear confounds,
Do I envy those jacks that nimble leap
To kiss the tender inward of thy hand,
Whilst my poor lips, which should that harvest reap,
At the wood's boldness by thee blushing stand!
To be so tickled, they would change their state
And situation with those dancing chips,
O'er whom thy fingers walk with gentle gait,
Making dead wood more blest than living lips.
   Since saucy jacks so happy are in this,
   Give them thy fingers, me thy lips to kiss.

Women Writers....

I have a question that keeps coming up whenever we speak of Wroth. Was she really the first woman to break down the barriers? Perhaps there were other women writers at the time, but her writings were the ones that survived time. It makes me question why do we not have more writings by women. We say that during the time, men were the poets, men were the prolific writers, but perhaps this is largely due to the fact that women kept writings to themselves, or their writings were lost. We have a similar problem with music. Here's an analogy that a teacher once used: Take a record store. All the popular, best selling albums are sold, with few remaining, and all the crappy albums that no one wants are put into storage. The good stuff is sold, listened to again and again, destroyed by wear-and-tear, and ultimately disappears after some time. Some hundred years later, researchers decide they want to look into what kind of music people listed to in the early 2000's, and they find this huge stockpile of what we didn't want. From that, they assume that this was the popular music of the time. What if something like this happened with literature? Perhaps there were a lot more women authors, but it was Wroth's work that survived? (Note: I'm not likening her works to "crappy" music.) I'm curious to know what others think...

Super Junior M - "Tai Wan Mei/Perfection"

Admittedly, I had a lot of trouble deciding what album to chose for a lyrics sequence comparison (hence the tardiness). It was a tie between Alan Parsons Project and Switchfoot, but I decided on my latest obsession, Korean boy band: Super Junior M. Super Junior M is a subdivision of a larger group, Super Junior. It was created to market to a larger Asian audience, primarily focused on China. The album I chose to work with is "Tai Wan Mei," or, "Perfection." I chose this album primarily because it shows that the concept of the lyric sequence is not limited to the Western world, but rather world wide. This album follows the tradition of the lyrics sequence: it deals with the typical ideas of a lyric sequence; admiration of a woman, falling for her, and the effects of her on him. 
The first track (and arguably the best) is "Perfection." This track marks the beginning of the story, where the narrator falls for a woman, describing her attributes (physically, mentally) and how he falls for her:

"oh too perfect! I appear in your eyes.
I will not let anyone else stay with you instead of me . woo~

your brows and eyes
your side face
your neck
your charm
your everything from head to toe.
I have already fallen for you.

Oh too perfect."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTMuO8Wy6As&feature=related

The following track is the next part of the story: Destiny. The lyrics begin with the narrator describing his state of mind before meeting the object of his affection: Lonely, seeking, almost desperate. After he finds his love, though, the lyrics change to:
"Meeting your string of destiny, that split second where I experienced real love
The strings of destiny of two people, two roads leading to the same end point
other sights leave no memories
You are my most beautiful April day
Every fragment of memories

Made into the bookmarks of love

 

The third track is more introspective, dealing with the narrator's own travails. "Love is Sweet" is about the narrator's shyness, his inability to express his feelings, his want to prove himself to his love, but also that "love is sweet." 

Fourth is "Off my Mind." This track deals with the effects of being in love. She is always on his mind. He's going crazy, and that, once again, this is no accident, but destiny. 

The fifth track, entitled "True Love,"is about the unshakable happiness that comes with love, that no matter what happens, as long as they are together, everything will be perfect, but still hints at his own inability to express himself. He is shy and unsure.

The final track takes a turn for the worst. In one of the most typical forms of a lyric sequence, it deals with unrequited love. It seems the narrators fears of being unable to properly express himself has been his downfall. "My All is in You," talks about love lost, chances lost. It hints that she felt the same way, and was waiting for him to make a move for so long that he finally lost his chance. 

"If back then as a child on the grasslands I had looked back
You said you loved me and
I hadn’t pretended to not know
If you could look for me now and
sing that same song and feel that same wind (same wind)
I will hold your hand

**On the grassland I look back
Your disappointment I now fully comprehend
If you could look for me now and
sing that same song and feel that same wind (same wind)
I will hold your hand."