The final response! Our final full week of class has been spent observing, appreciating, and analyzing music; a definite change of pace compared to the daily readings. It's remarkable to consider that music tells a story equal in complexity and magnitude as any written narrative. In Friday's class, we saw (or heard, rather) how music is like a story.
First, it has exposition, or an introduction to the form. Next is development. This reflects the conflicts and obstacles that must be overcome. Last is the recapitulation, or a return to normalcy. In essence, the story ends where it begins. An example from story telling where we see the beginning echoing the ending is ABC's hit series LOST. The following is an intercut between the opening seconds of the pilot episode when Jack wakes up on the island and the final moments of the series finale when Jack dies on the island.
Michael Giacchino's score for LOST highlights music's incredible ability to help tell a story, as well. However, I've never quite appreciated how music has a beginning, middle, and end-- until now, that is.
I took a look at my favorite songs and, low and behold, most of them follow this format, as well. Take a look at one of my favorite songs from Coldplay, Viva La Vida.
From the start of the song to 1:09 is the exposition. We are introduced to a person who "used to rule the world" and the music has a defined tempo. Next comes the development. It's here that we experience the more complex chorus and the several obstacles that this ruler had to face. Phrases such as "never an honest word," "revolutionaries wait for my head on a silver plate," and "just a puppet on a lonely string" indicate his struggle. The recapitulation comes in the very final words of the song: "but that was when I ruled the world."
Few things in art are more beautiful than concatenation, and music captures it beautifully.
Weekly Response Eleven
As our week of enlightenment comes to a close, I turn my attention to the essay that will be due in a little over a week. My last essay argued the contemporary relevance of Thomas More's Utopia, but instead of following it up with a comparison essay, I'm thinking that my second essay will be a creative response. I love being creative and I think that I can put something together that is entertaining as well as true to the original text.
After much thought, I'm thinking that my creative response will be something along the lines of a contemporary parody of Moliere's Tartuffe. We read about Tartuffe and his hypocritical ways a few weeks ago, and I think that Moliere's flavor of comedy would be fun to play with. I'm thinking that an interesting parody would be, instead of centering it on Orgon's family, I'd center it on Walter White's family. Walter White is the protagonist of Breaking Bad, a hit TV show that ended earlier last month on AMC. The quickest synopsis of the TV show I can give you is that Walter is a high school chemistry teacher who finds out he has lung cancer. With the well being of his family in mind, Walter turns to cooking crystal meth and plans on leaving them his earnings after he dies.
Essentially, this translates to Walter being the equivalent of Tartuffe the hypocrite because he claims that what he is doing is for the good of his family, but in reality he goes behind their back and sells drugs. He goes on to finally admit in the series finale that he did it all for himself and that he liked it, he was good at it, and he finally felt alive. The equivalent of Orgon would be Walter Jr., Walter's son. Walter Jr. is fooled by his father's lies almost until the very end of the series, much like how Orgon is fooled by Tartuffe for the majority of the play. Both of these characters see the best in the person that is fooling them and genuinely want what is best for them. Elmire can be represented by Skyler, Walter's wife. She finds out fairly early on that Walter is a drug dealer and, by the end of the series, is almost going insane from how much she hates harboring the secret. Damis should be represented by Hank, the DEA agent brother-in-law to Walter who tries to put him behind bars, but fails. Hank's wife, Marie, could also play Elmire to make the relationships all make more sense. In that case, Skyler would make for a good Mariane because she doesn't want to be married to the hypocrite. (This is starting to get very complicated.)
Let me know if this is even headed in the right direction!
Definitely headed in the right direction. This sounds great. - MH
Weekly Response Ten
Happy Friday! I can't think of a better way to celebrate than to post my tenth (count 'em, tenth!) weekly response for the class. Wooh!
This week in class, we initiated our dissection of Candide by Voltaire. In class on Wednesday we created a list of the ironic themes that are present in Candide and one of the ideas that I suggest was "the human form." The more that I read, though, this is especially proving to be the case. I can't go a page without seeing a crippled homeless man losing his teeth or someone describing their STD or a ship sinking and everyone on board drowning because they simply can't swim. In short, everyone is dying and it is beginning to get unpleasant. The story is so unpleasant, in fact, at times I liken the passages to how reading A Series of Unfortunate Events made me feel growing up: Distraught.
In Chapter 10 of Candide, an argument erupts over who is more unhappy. The passage beings with Cunegonde addressing Candide: " 'I love you with all my heart,' Cunegonde told him, 'but my soul is still terrified by what I have seen and endured.' " She goes on to proclaim, " '...my universe has been so terribly unhappy that my heart is nearly closed to the possibility.' " Enter the old woman: " 'The two of you are complaining,' the old woman said to them. 'Alas! You have never seen misfortunes like mine.' " Cunegonde goes on to laugh in the old woman's face and replies, " 'My dear woman, unless you have been raped by two Bulgars, been stabbed in the belly twice, seen two of your castles demolished, witnessed the murder of two mothers and fathers, and watched two of your lovers being whipped in an auto-da-fe, I don't see how you can outdo me." If I was there, I would have told them that their lives appear to be equally miserable, but Cunegonde gets the slight nod for having to witness her parents' deaths. That would stink.
Weekly Response Nine
This week's primary focus centered around Moliere's famous comedic play Tartuffe. As a theatre major, I am already well acquainted with the play and will likely be encountering it even more in the coming years. Easily the funniest (and most iconic) moment of the play comes when Elmire has Orgon hide underneath the table while she attempts to lure Tartuffe into proving his hypocrisy. It is immensely funny to see Elmire, an older woman who, despite her beautiful appearance, must stray from her comfort zone in order to convince her husband of the fraud that is in their house. What's more, when she appears to have all of the evidence that Orgon would need to indict Tartuffe, Orgon fails to manifest from underneath the table, thus forcing Elmire to outlast Tartuffe's advances for as long as possible. For its time, it was certainly comedic genius.
Today, countless adaptations have been made of this exact scene. Although Tartuffe doesn't end with Orgon catching Tartuffe red handed, modern adaptations often have it serve as the climax and where the protagonist catches the pesky, elusive villain. Disney channel is especially guilty of *cough* *cough* bastardizing *cough* *cough* this plot device. Of course, nothing is funnier to kids when nonsensical shenanigans get their favorite characters into a bunch of trouble. Take the now off-the-air Disney show That's So Raven. In one particular episode, Raven's best friend, Chelsea, is trying to garner support to help protect the old oak tree outside of the school. Ricky Ullman (from the other Disney show Phil of the Future) enters the story as a student who pretends to be exactly the kind of person Chelsea is looking for. He's a vegetarian just like her and openly advocates for a greener earth. Of course, we go on to find out that he's lying and is coning Chelsea for reasons not specified.... it's Disney channel. Ultimately, Raven has to convince Chelsea that Ullman's character is lying by having Chelsea hide her bedroom. The only notable difference is that once Ullman's character confesses and Chelsea finds out, she becomes upset with Raven.
This is actually an interesting twist that could have played off very well in Tartuffe. Orgon is certainly infatuated with Tartuffe, and finding out that he is a hypocrite--a point which he has actively tried to deny--would certainly be soul crushing for him. Throwing in an exchange where Orgon scolds Elmire for being so manipulative of his emotions would be hilarious. It is also revealing about the human condition: Ignorance is indeed bliss. Disney channel is full of certifiable garbage, but I suppose that in this one instance they had something worth while to contribute to the medium.
Weekly Response Eight
The focus of the week centered around some of the first instances of contact that was made between European settlers and the fated natives that awaited them. It really was fascinating material to read. Christopher Columbus is indubitably a terrible person who should in no way be praised (nor be given his own day, for crying out loud!), but the journals he kept recounting his landing party are invaluable, nonetheless.
The most interesting aspect of all is the moment in which Columbus and his men first saw the natives. "At dawn we saw naked people, and I went ashore in the ship's boat, armed..." In that moment, two completely unfamiliar worlds separated by an ocean of water--and even greater ocean of ideas--finally met. I say finally because, in all honesty, it was inevitable. As much as I wish that the Native Americans (as well as the Aztecs, among other native societies) would have been able to continue on their existence today--free of outside contamination--the increase in technology coupled with human curiosity (and greed) guaranteed that this encounter would one day happen. It was inevitable in much the same way that the moon landing was inevitable and the colonization of distant planets will one day be inevitable, as well.
Speaking of distant planets, the film Another Earth explores the idea of colliding worlds and offers an interesting thought. But first, a quick synopsis. Another Earth is a (barely) sci-fi movie with the premise that an identical copy of Earth appears from the void of deep space and is slowly approaching our Earth. It is super existential and super good, too. Go see it. Anyway, the film posits the idea that as soon as the two Earth's become aware of each other, their mirror existence is shattered. Everything they could have ever been destined to do, everything they assumed was real, evaporates. This is exactly what happens with the natives. Their peaceful lives and timeless culture would soon come to a bloody end.
Weekly Response Seven Nick, this sounds like a good plan. When you get to part three, you might consider whether any of the Hollywood utopias offer similar perspectives as Utopia. Do they help us respect other cultures and teach us to strive to be better? Why do you think there are so many utopian/dystopian movies today? -MH
And so, another week in Honors 202 comes to an end. But my first major essay for the class is still underway. Of the three available options, I will be working on option number two. This prompt calls for arguing the contemporary relevance of something we've read in class. I will be writing about Utopia and arguing that it is indeed still relevant today. So far, my thesis is as follows: Thomas More’s Utopia remains relevant to today’s society because it helps us to appreciate and respect other cultures while teaching us to always strive to be better. Not to mention, popular culture clings to the idea of a Utopia as fervently as ever.
Pretty straight forward.
I think I have a lot I can work with here, and given the necessary length of the paper (4 to 6 pages), I should be able to cover it.
The first section focuses on how Utopia helps us to appreciate and respect other cultures. Just consider the entire premise of the story: Thomas More is listening to a member of a culture tell him everything there is to know about it. More doesn't interject to argue, nor does he ever allow the writing to slip into his own narrative. He just listens. In today's culture, listening means thinking of a counter argument while your opponent pleads their case. Take the government shutdown that is currently in effect. It's hard to imagine that a whole lot of listening or trying to understand the other view point has taken place during the process. Utopia closes with More admitting that he has several questions and counter arguments to everything he has heard, but he lets them slip to the wayside. Instead, he takes his host hands, and they go to supper. If we could all just learn from this account (fictional as it may be), the world could be a much better place.
Next, Utopia teaches us to strive to be better. The story is packed full of Rafael's explanations of why it is that the members of Utopia behave the way they do, and every single time, the interests of the community trump the wants of the individual. This section will require some more critical analysis, but I have a good foundation so far.
Finally, I will examine how popular culture clings to the idea of a Utopia still today. I might need to reword this part because when I say "popular culture," what I am really trying to say is Hollywood. Consider all of the recently created movies that deal with utopian (and by default, the notion of dystopian) society. The Matrix, Elysium, Cloud Atlas, The Island, Moon, The Purge, and V for Vendetta have all been made in the last decade or so and all have something to say. In this section, I can explore the meanings behind some of these movies and try to draw connections between them and Utopia.
These are just my initial ideas. Let me know if anything seems odd or like it could use reworking.
Weekly Response Six
We ended class today by wondering aloud, what are the similarities and differences between The Prince and Utopia? Initially, I thought that there really weren't any. The Prince looks into what a ruler is called to do for sake of his people and the security of his job, while Utopia explores a fictional land where communist robot-like people live happily and nothing ever goes wrong (not really, but really though). I could have said that both of the authors have names that start with 'M' but even that barely holds up.
And then someone brought up a great point: Machiavelli and More are offering two different outlooks on human nature. In Utopia, More leans toward the train of thought that given the right circumstances and the perfect environment, mankind has tremendous potential. Take the Utopians' outlook on clothes, for example. Rafael wonders how anyone can "be silly enough to think himself better than the other people because his clothes are made of finer woolen thread than theirs. After all, those fine clothes were once worn by a sheep, and they never turned it into anything better than a sheep." Clearly, in Utopia, no one thinks of themselves as better than anyone else. Unless that someone else is a sheep. Sheep are the worst.
ThePrince on the other hand points to the corruption of man and how a ruler's best option is to also be corrupt. After all, performing good deeds go unnoticed. Machiavelli expounds on this idea by very eloquently saying "...he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived." We begin to understand just how poorly Machiavelli regards the common populace. Not only are they stupid enough to be deceived, they are so foolish that want to be deceived.
One more comparison that can be made: The Prince is about the ideal position in society, Utopia the ideal society. Upon further analysis however, the less ideal either truly are.
Weekly Response Five
This week's discussions centered around The Wife of Bath from Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. After reading her tale, I found the character of The Wife of Bath to be a bit repulsive and crude. She talks ad nauseam about her several marriages to an assortment of men and how each time she would manipulate her husbands to get whatever it is she desired. Also, she refers to her vagina as an "instrument" which is all kinds of disgusting. However, given the social climate of the Medieval Period, I found myself actually sympathizing for her and almost cheering her on. Plus, she made some great points about virginity and marriage.
First, It appears she concedes that to be a virgin is to be pure (something that is completely false, but I'll bite my tongue for now). But as mentioned earlier, God gave her an instrument that she should use just like any of her other organs. An excellent point. For whatever reason, the church has always clung to sex as one of its major talking points. I assert that this is partly as tribute to one of its icons, The Virgin Mother, who refrained from sex (as far as we know) but mostly because the church is interested in controlling every aspect of a person's existence. The Wife of Bath is visibly frustrated by this.
On the topic of marriage, she notes that she is often ridiculed for having been married five times. The church does its best to let everyone--including The Wife of Bath--know that just one marriage will do. Any more than that and you're just asking to go to Hell. But, to her credit, the wife points out several instances in The Bible where men have several partners and no one seems to care about that. I wonder why the church ignores that? I actually don't ever wonder that, I'm just being facetious.
We've heard the same arguments come up today surrounding the gay marriage debate. "Marriage has ALWAYS been one man and one woman." Clearly, The Wife of Bath knew better and she's over half a millennia older than those idiots. Crude or not, The Wife of Bath knows what she's talking about. Weekly Response Four
This week we completed Dante's rather lengthy The Divine Comedy and all thirty-four of its Cantos. The readings weren't always entirely clear, however. On numerous occasions, Dante introduces his contemporaries who are of absolutely no relevance to me. Brunetto Latini? Farinata degli Uberti? Attila the Hun? Much like what my kids will go on to say of Miley Cyrus, I haven't the slightest clue who they are. I'm sure the readers of the time did though, and that's all that really matters.
However, I highly doubt that Dante wrote his (hardly funny) comedy for anyone but himself. The politics of the Catholic church seem to have consumed poor Dante in the latter years of his life, and he was cast out of Florence and into exile. The Divine Comedy (much like spirituality itself) likely offered Dante a much needed release from real life. In his story, he is the protagonist and is directly sent for by Mother Mary to be brought to Paradise. "If only," he likely caught himself thinking as he brought pen to paper.
What is most impressive to me is how much praise Dante is given for this piece. All it took was some preconceived half-baked morals, a vivid imagination, and an inkwell, and Dante was putting the fear of God into people's hearts. He must have felt very powerful.
It is interesting to consider how the church took all of this. On one hand, it is a clear endorsement of their core beliefs and certainly lends itself to further indoctrination of the populace. But on the other hand, it is borderline blasphemous--and in turn, ironic--that the poet should devise a series of stories that depict that which can only be known by God (or people who God has spoken through, of course).
Nevertheless, I'm sure there are countless persons who took everything Dante wrote at face value.
Weekly Response Three
This week we have begun our work on The Divine Comedy. It is interesting to note just how much time Dante must have put into making sure that every detail was just right in his lengthy tale. For instance, the intricate layout of Hell alone must have taken him months to come up with. Below (no pun intended) is an image that portrays the path Dante takes on his journey through Hell.
From what we were able to come up with in class, Dante ranks the sins in this order, from least sinful to most sinful:
Limbo (Welcome to Hell)
Lust
Gluttony
Greed (Kind of the same thing as gluttony)
Anger
Heresy (Naturally)
Violence
Against Others
arson (That escalated quickly.)
ruinous offense
extortion
despoiler
robber
plunderer (Sorry, pirates.)
Against One's Self
suicide
Against God (He has feelings, too.)
Blasphemy
Sodemites
Fraud
Treachery
Against relatives
Against homeland or party
Against guests (Worse than relatives?)
Against benefactors
Satan
An interesting list to say the least. Growing up, I was taught that no sin was ever greater than another. Simply put, a sin is a sin is a sin. However, Dante’s interpretation is far more compelling. The notion that Hell is a sort of cone where, with each successive ring, the punishment increases to fit the crime.
The question that I wonder about though is how did Dante determine the order to list the sins in? We discussed the order in class, but I would be interesting to hear Dante himself defend his work. Apparently, he thinks that falsifiers--or people that mislead others--are the worst. I agree that it’s bad to lie to people, but is that really the worst thing a person can do? Worse than being a thief? Worse than taking another person’s life?
What is most puzzling is how God judges the gray areas of sin. What does he do with a thief who stole so he could feed his family? And what of a man/ woman who commits more than one sin? Will they split time between the various rings of Hell? How severely must one sin in order to be condemned to Hell? After all, everyone sins. According to The Bible, we are born in it. What does that mean for the fate of mankind?
Ultimately, Dante's Inferno is an Everyman type story. That being said, it isn't just Dante that the inferno belongs to. It's everyone's inferno.
Weekly Response Two
Last week I did not have a chance to introduce myself so I thought I would briefly do that right now!
My name is Nick Murhling, I'm nineteen years old and I'm from Fishers, IN. I have a family of six that includes my Mom, Dad, older brother, and two younger sisters. We also have a cat named Lucy. As a sophomore at Ball State, I'm a double major in TCOM and Theatre Studies. When it's all said and done, I'd like to also have a minor in screenwriting or creative writing. I really enjoy involving myself with entertainment. I am a member of the Reflex Improv Comedy Troupe, I have hosted my own radio show on WCRD, and have appeared on stage in the Cave Theatre of the Arts and Communications building. I am also currently employed by Comedy Sportz Indianapolis. Like Reflex, Comedy Sportz is an improv comedy troupe. It is a dream of mine to one day be a member Second City in Chicago and, eventually, Saturday Night Live in New York City.
One of these days I'll come to class with a shaved head, and it won't be because I have joined a cult. It will be because of Frankenstein. Later this semester, I will be appearing as the creature in the Ball State Theatre Department's production of Frankenstein. It is sure to be an incredibly exciting and memorable experience as our production will open in mid October in Strother Theatre and will likely travel to the American Theatre College Festival in Saginaw, Michigan early next semester. There, it will be performed and judged along side some of the region's most prestigious collegiate theatre.
When I'm not up on stage I like to sit at home and watch either Breaking Bad or the Colts playing football. I'm a big fan of both and can't get enough of them. Go Colts! Go Breaking Bad!
I look forward to spending the rest of the semester with all of you!
Weekly Response One
It is often asserted by religious doctrines that God created man in his own image. We all know The Bible's creation story: God makes Adam from the clay of the earth and Eve from Adam's rib. Perfect, right?
As we saw in Wednesday’s class, Jesus’s death is another iconic moment in Christian theology. For centuries, Byzantine artists worked hard trying to capture some new nuance about Christ’s demise.
The first piece we saw showed Jesus surrounded by his disciples, eager to catch a glimpse of their fated savior. The women are weeping while the men are stoic. Halos illuminate the heads of only the most pious, elegantly dressed individuals. Just as it should be.
Artistically speaking, The Lamentation of the Dead Christ by Andrea Mantegna offers a much more realistic depiction of Jesus. Shading, a sense of depth in the space, and an attention to detail help the piece to all come together. Meanwhile, a weeping Mother Mary’s world appears to be falling apart. A passed away Jesus remains stoic, however. His firm jaw and soft skin is turned toward the light ever so slightly. Perfect.
Independent of the techniques that brought each piece of art to life--and the clear disregard for candid subject matter--there is one item that struck me about both pieces. Every person is white skinned.
Obviously, there is no way that Anglo-European individuals inhabited the Middle East thousands of years ago. So why is this? The answer is simple: These artists, much like their God, were simply recreating something in their own image.
However, an interesting--and often taboo--question surfaces. Do we as humans share the same component that urged God to create something in His likeness? An insatiable urge to bring about something that glorifies our own image? Or is it something else?
Is that desire to feel important--that desire to see ourselves in everything--just us being selfish? Or perhaps it is pride? Or are we just afraid? Are we afraid that one day, there will come a time when we don’t matter? Our interests, where we’re from, what we look like; none of it will be worth anything. There will come a day when there won't be anyone left to appreciate who we are or what we stand for. And that is scary.
So we make paintings that preserve what is dear to us and they contain the pieces of us that we think matter most and everything in those paintings is perfect, too! That way, reality doesn’t hurt so much. And if all of that is true, then it becomes more and more apparent that man was so afraid, so terrified of a life without meaning that it created God in its own image. Not the other way around.
That might not be perfect, but at least it’s trying to approach the truth.
The final response! Our final full week of class has been spent observing, appreciating, and analyzing music; a definite change of pace compared to the daily readings. It's remarkable to consider that music tells a story equal in complexity and magnitude as any written narrative. In Friday's class, we saw (or heard, rather) how music is like a story.
First, it has exposition, or an introduction to the form. Next is development. This reflects the conflicts and obstacles that must be overcome. Last is the recapitulation, or a return to normalcy. In essence, the story ends where it begins. An example from story telling where we see the beginning echoing the ending is ABC's hit series LOST. The following is an intercut between the opening seconds of the pilot episode when Jack wakes up on the island and the final moments of the series finale when Jack dies on the island.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6qIugJM_pc
Michael Giacchino's score for LOST highlights music's incredible ability to help tell a story, as well. However, I've never quite appreciated how music has a beginning, middle, and end-- until now, that is.
I took a look at my favorite songs and, low and behold, most of them follow this format, as well. Take a look at one of my favorite songs from Coldplay, Viva La Vida.
http://www.metrolyrics.com/viva-la-vida-lyrics-coldplay.html
From the start of the song to 1:09 is the exposition. We are introduced to a person who "used to rule the world" and the music has a defined tempo. Next comes the development. It's here that we experience the more complex chorus and the several obstacles that this ruler had to face. Phrases such as "never an honest word," "revolutionaries wait for my head on a silver plate," and "just a puppet on a lonely string" indicate his struggle. The recapitulation comes in the very final words of the song: "but that was when I ruled the world."
Few things in art are more beautiful than concatenation, and music captures it beautifully.
Weekly Response Eleven
As our week of enlightenment comes to a close, I turn my attention to the essay that will be due in a little over a week. My last essay argued the contemporary relevance of Thomas More's Utopia, but instead of following it up with a comparison essay, I'm thinking that my second essay will be a creative response. I love being creative and I think that I can put something together that is entertaining as well as true to the original text.
After much thought, I'm thinking that my creative response will be something along the lines of a contemporary parody of Moliere's Tartuffe. We read about Tartuffe and his hypocritical ways a few weeks ago, and I think that Moliere's flavor of comedy would be fun to play with. I'm thinking that an interesting parody would be, instead of centering it on Orgon's family, I'd center it on Walter White's family. Walter White is the protagonist of Breaking Bad, a hit TV show that ended earlier last month on AMC. The quickest synopsis of the TV show I can give you is that Walter is a high school chemistry teacher who finds out he has lung cancer. With the well being of his family in mind, Walter turns to cooking crystal meth and plans on leaving them his earnings after he dies.
Essentially, this translates to Walter being the equivalent of Tartuffe the hypocrite because he claims that what he is doing is for the good of his family, but in reality he goes behind their back and sells drugs. He goes on to finally admit in the series finale that he did it all for himself and that he liked it, he was good at it, and he finally felt alive. The equivalent of Orgon would be Walter Jr., Walter's son. Walter Jr. is fooled by his father's lies almost until the very end of the series, much like how Orgon is fooled by Tartuffe for the majority of the play. Both of these characters see the best in the person that is fooling them and genuinely want what is best for them. Elmire can be represented by Skyler, Walter's wife. She finds out fairly early on that Walter is a drug dealer and, by the end of the series, is almost going insane from how much she hates harboring the secret. Damis should be represented by Hank, the DEA agent brother-in-law to Walter who tries to put him behind bars, but fails. Hank's wife, Marie, could also play Elmire to make the relationships all make more sense. In that case, Skyler would make for a good Mariane because she doesn't want to be married to the hypocrite. (This is starting to get very complicated.)
Let me know if this is even headed in the right direction!
Definitely headed in the right direction. This sounds great. - MH
Weekly Response Ten
Happy Friday! I can't think of a better way to celebrate than to post my tenth (count 'em, tenth!) weekly response for the class. Wooh!
This week in class, we initiated our dissection of Candide by Voltaire. In class on Wednesday we created a list of the ironic themes that are present in Candide and one of the ideas that I suggest was "the human form." The more that I read, though, this is especially proving to be the case. I can't go a page without seeing a crippled homeless man losing his teeth or someone describing their STD or a ship sinking and everyone on board drowning because they simply can't swim. In short, everyone is dying and it is beginning to get unpleasant. The story is so unpleasant, in fact, at times I liken the passages to how reading A Series of Unfortunate Events made me feel growing up: Distraught.
In Chapter 10 of Candide, an argument erupts over who is more unhappy. The passage beings with Cunegonde addressing Candide: " 'I love you with all my heart,' Cunegonde told him, 'but my soul is still terrified by what I have seen and endured.' " She goes on to proclaim, " '...my universe has been so terribly unhappy that my heart is nearly closed to the possibility.' " Enter the old woman: " 'The two of you are complaining,' the old woman said to them. 'Alas! You have never seen misfortunes like mine.' " Cunegonde goes on to laugh in the old woman's face and replies, " 'My dear woman, unless you have been raped by two Bulgars, been stabbed in the belly twice, seen two of your castles demolished, witnessed the murder of two mothers and fathers, and watched two of your lovers being whipped in an auto-da-fe, I don't see how you can outdo me." If I was there, I would have told them that their lives appear to be equally miserable, but Cunegonde gets the slight nod for having to witness her parents' deaths. That would stink.
Weekly Response Nine
This week's primary focus centered around Moliere's famous comedic play Tartuffe. As a theatre major, I am already well acquainted with the play and will likely be encountering it even more in the coming years. Easily the funniest (and most iconic) moment of the play comes when Elmire has Orgon hide underneath the table while she attempts to lure Tartuffe into proving his hypocrisy. It is immensely funny to see Elmire, an older woman who, despite her beautiful appearance, must stray from her comfort zone in order to convince her husband of the fraud that is in their house. What's more, when she appears to have all of the evidence that Orgon would need to indict Tartuffe, Orgon fails to manifest from underneath the table, thus forcing Elmire to outlast Tartuffe's advances for as long as possible. For its time, it was certainly comedic genius.
Today, countless adaptations have been made of this exact scene. Although Tartuffe doesn't end with Orgon catching Tartuffe red handed, modern adaptations often have it serve as the climax and where the protagonist catches the pesky, elusive villain. Disney channel is especially guilty of *cough* *cough* bastardizing *cough* *cough* this plot device. Of course, nothing is funnier to kids when nonsensical shenanigans get their favorite characters into a bunch of trouble. Take the now off-the-air Disney show That's So Raven. In one particular episode, Raven's best friend, Chelsea, is trying to garner support to help protect the old oak tree outside of the school. Ricky Ullman (from the other Disney show Phil of the Future) enters the story as a student who pretends to be exactly the kind of person Chelsea is looking for. He's a vegetarian just like her and openly advocates for a greener earth. Of course, we go on to find out that he's lying and is coning Chelsea for reasons not specified.... it's Disney channel. Ultimately, Raven has to convince Chelsea that Ullman's character is lying by having Chelsea hide her bedroom. The only notable difference is that once Ullman's character confesses and Chelsea finds out, she becomes upset with Raven.
This is actually an interesting twist that could have played off very well in Tartuffe. Orgon is certainly infatuated with Tartuffe, and finding out that he is a hypocrite--a point which he has actively tried to deny--would certainly be soul crushing for him. Throwing in an exchange where Orgon scolds Elmire for being so manipulative of his emotions would be hilarious. It is also revealing about the human condition: Ignorance is indeed bliss. Disney channel is full of certifiable garbage, but I suppose that in this one instance they had something worth while to contribute to the medium.
Weekly Response Eight
The focus of the week centered around some of the first instances of contact that was made between European settlers and the fated natives that awaited them. It really was fascinating material to read. Christopher Columbus is indubitably a terrible person who should in no way be praised (nor be given his own day, for crying out loud!), but the journals he kept recounting his landing party are invaluable, nonetheless.
The most interesting aspect of all is the moment in which Columbus and his men first saw the natives. "At dawn we saw naked people, and I went ashore in the ship's boat, armed..." In that moment, two completely unfamiliar worlds separated by an ocean of water--and even greater ocean of ideas--finally met. I say finally because, in all honesty, it was inevitable. As much as I wish that the Native Americans (as well as the Aztecs, among other native societies) would have been able to continue on their existence today--free of outside contamination--the increase in technology coupled with human curiosity (and greed) guaranteed that this encounter would one day happen. It was inevitable in much the same way that the moon landing was inevitable and the colonization of distant planets will one day be inevitable, as well.
Speaking of distant planets, the film Another Earth explores the idea of colliding worlds and offers an interesting thought. But first, a quick synopsis. Another Earth is a (barely) sci-fi movie with the premise that an identical copy of Earth appears from the void of deep space and is slowly approaching our Earth. It is super existential and super good, too. Go see it. Anyway, the film posits the idea that as soon as the two Earth's become aware of each other, their mirror existence is shattered. Everything they could have ever been destined to do, everything they assumed was real, evaporates. This is exactly what happens with the natives. Their peaceful lives and timeless culture would soon come to a bloody end.
Weekly Response Seven
Nick, this sounds like a good plan. When you get to part three, you might consider whether any of the Hollywood utopias offer similar perspectives as Utopia. Do they help us respect other cultures and teach us to strive to be better? Why do you think there are so many utopian/dystopian movies today? -MH
And so, another week in Honors 202 comes to an end. But my first major essay for the class is still underway. Of the three available options, I will be working on option number two. This prompt calls for arguing the contemporary relevance of something we've read in class. I will be writing about Utopia and arguing that it is indeed still relevant today. So far, my thesis is as follows: Thomas More’s Utopia remains relevant to today’s society because it helps us to appreciate and respect other cultures while teaching us to always strive to be better. Not to mention, popular culture clings to the idea of a Utopia as fervently as ever.
Pretty straight forward.
I think I have a lot I can work with here, and given the necessary length of the paper (4 to 6 pages), I should be able to cover it.
The first section focuses on how Utopia helps us to appreciate and respect other cultures. Just consider the entire premise of the story: Thomas More is listening to a member of a culture tell him everything there is to know about it. More doesn't interject to argue, nor does he ever allow the writing to slip into his own narrative. He just listens. In today's culture, listening means thinking of a counter argument while your opponent pleads their case. Take the government shutdown that is currently in effect. It's hard to imagine that a whole lot of listening or trying to understand the other view point has taken place during the process. Utopia closes with More admitting that he has several questions and counter arguments to everything he has heard, but he lets them slip to the wayside. Instead, he takes his host hands, and they go to supper. If we could all just learn from this account (fictional as it may be), the world could be a much better place.
Next, Utopia teaches us to strive to be better. The story is packed full of Rafael's explanations of why it is that the members of Utopia behave the way they do, and every single time, the interests of the community trump the wants of the individual. This section will require some more critical analysis, but I have a good foundation so far.
Finally, I will examine how popular culture clings to the idea of a Utopia still today. I might need to reword this part because when I say "popular culture," what I am really trying to say is Hollywood. Consider all of the recently created movies that deal with utopian (and by default, the notion of dystopian) society. The Matrix, Elysium, Cloud Atlas, The Island, Moon, The Purge, and V for Vendetta have all been made in the last decade or so and all have something to say. In this section, I can explore the meanings behind some of these movies and try to draw connections between them and Utopia.
These are just my initial ideas. Let me know if anything seems odd or like it could use reworking.
Weekly Response Six
We ended class today by wondering aloud, what are the similarities and differences between The Prince and Utopia? Initially, I thought that there really weren't any. The Prince looks into what a ruler is called to do for sake of his people and the security of his job, while Utopia explores a fictional land where communist robot-like people live happily and nothing ever goes wrong (not really, but really though). I could have said that both of the authors have names that start with 'M' but even that barely holds up.
And then someone brought up a great point: Machiavelli and More are offering two different outlooks on human nature. In Utopia, More leans toward the train of thought that given the right circumstances and the perfect environment, mankind has tremendous potential. Take the Utopians' outlook on clothes, for example. Rafael wonders how anyone can "be silly enough to think himself better than the other people because his clothes are made of finer woolen thread than theirs. After all, those fine clothes were once worn by a sheep, and they never turned it into anything better than a sheep." Clearly, in Utopia, no one thinks of themselves as better than anyone else. Unless that someone else is a sheep. Sheep are the worst.
The Prince on the other hand points to the corruption of man and how a ruler's best option is to also be corrupt. After all, performing good deeds go unnoticed. Machiavelli expounds on this idea by very eloquently saying "...he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived." We begin to understand just how poorly Machiavelli regards the common populace. Not only are they stupid enough to be deceived, they are so foolish that want to be deceived.
One more comparison that can be made: The Prince is about the ideal position in society, Utopia the ideal society. Upon further analysis however, the less ideal either truly are.
Weekly Response Five
This week's discussions centered around The Wife of Bath from Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. After reading her tale, I found the character of The Wife of Bath to be a bit repulsive and crude. She talks ad nauseam about her several marriages to an assortment of men and how each time she would manipulate her husbands to get whatever it is she desired. Also, she refers to her vagina as an "instrument" which is all kinds of disgusting. However, given the social climate of the Medieval Period, I found myself actually sympathizing for her and almost cheering her on. Plus, she made some great points about virginity and marriage.
First, It appears she concedes that to be a virgin is to be pure (something that is completely false, but I'll bite my tongue for now). But as mentioned earlier, God gave her an instrument that she should use just like any of her other organs. An excellent point. For whatever reason, the church has always clung to sex as one of its major talking points. I assert that this is partly as tribute to one of its icons, The Virgin Mother, who refrained from sex (as far as we know) but mostly because the church is interested in controlling every aspect of a person's existence. The Wife of Bath is visibly frustrated by this.
On the topic of marriage, she notes that she is often ridiculed for having been married five times. The church does its best to let everyone--including The Wife of Bath--know that just one marriage will do. Any more than that and you're just asking to go to Hell. But, to her credit, the wife points out several instances in The Bible where men have several partners and no one seems to care about that. I wonder why the church ignores that? I actually don't ever wonder that, I'm just being facetious.
We've heard the same arguments come up today surrounding the gay marriage debate. "Marriage has ALWAYS been one man and one woman." Clearly, The Wife of Bath knew better and she's over half a millennia older than those idiots. Crude or not, The Wife of Bath knows what she's talking about.
Weekly Response Four
This week we completed Dante's rather lengthy The Divine Comedy and all thirty-four of its Cantos. The readings weren't always entirely clear, however. On numerous occasions, Dante introduces his contemporaries who are of absolutely no relevance to me. Brunetto Latini? Farinata degli Uberti? Attila the Hun? Much like what my kids will go on to say of Miley Cyrus, I haven't the slightest clue who they are. I'm sure the readers of the time did though, and that's all that really matters.
However, I highly doubt that Dante wrote his (hardly funny) comedy for anyone but himself. The politics of the Catholic church seem to have consumed poor Dante in the latter years of his life, and he was cast out of Florence and into exile. The Divine Comedy (much like spirituality itself) likely offered Dante a much needed release from real life. In his story, he is the protagonist and is directly sent for by Mother Mary to be brought to Paradise. "If only," he likely caught himself thinking as he brought pen to paper.
What is most impressive to me is how much praise Dante is given for this piece. All it took was some preconceived half-baked morals, a vivid imagination, and an inkwell, and Dante was putting the fear of God into people's hearts. He must have felt very powerful.
It is interesting to consider how the church took all of this. On one hand, it is a clear endorsement of their core beliefs and certainly lends itself to further indoctrination of the populace. But on the other hand, it is borderline blasphemous--and in turn, ironic--that the poet should devise a series of stories that depict that which can only be known by God (or people who God has spoken through, of course).
Nevertheless, I'm sure there are countless persons who took everything Dante wrote at face value.
Weekly Response Three
This week we have begun our work on The Divine Comedy. It is interesting to note just how much time Dante must have put into making sure that every detail was just right in his lengthy tale. For instance, the intricate layout of Hell alone must have taken him months to come up with. Below (no pun intended) is an image that portrays the path Dante takes on his journey through Hell.
From what we were able to come up with in class, Dante ranks the sins in this order, from least sinful to most sinful:
An interesting list to say the least. Growing up, I was taught that no sin was ever greater than another. Simply put, a sin is a sin is a sin. However, Dante’s interpretation is far more compelling. The notion that Hell is a sort of cone where, with each successive ring, the punishment increases to fit the crime.
The question that I wonder about though is how did Dante determine the order to list the sins in? We discussed the order in class, but I would be interesting to hear Dante himself defend his work. Apparently, he thinks that falsifiers--or people that mislead others--are the worst. I agree that it’s bad to lie to people, but is that really the worst thing a person can do? Worse than being a thief? Worse than taking another person’s life?
What is most puzzling is how God judges the gray areas of sin. What does he do with a thief who stole so he could feed his family? And what of a man/ woman who commits more than one sin? Will they split time between the various rings of Hell? How severely must one sin in order to be condemned to Hell? After all, everyone sins. According to The Bible, we are born in it. What does that mean for the fate of mankind?
Ultimately, Dante's Inferno is an Everyman type story. That being said, it isn't just Dante that the inferno belongs to. It's everyone's inferno.
Weekly Response Two
Last week I did not have a chance to introduce myself so I thought I would briefly do that right now!
My name is Nick Murhling, I'm nineteen years old and I'm from Fishers, IN. I have a family of six that includes my Mom, Dad, older brother, and two younger sisters. We also have a cat named Lucy. As a sophomore at Ball State, I'm a double major in TCOM and Theatre Studies. When it's all said and done, I'd like to also have a minor in screenwriting or creative writing. I really enjoy involving myself with entertainment. I am a member of the Reflex Improv Comedy Troupe, I have hosted my own radio show on WCRD, and have appeared on stage in the Cave Theatre of the Arts and Communications building. I am also currently employed by Comedy Sportz Indianapolis. Like Reflex, Comedy Sportz is an improv comedy troupe. It is a dream of mine to one day be a member Second City in Chicago and, eventually, Saturday Night Live in New York City.
When I'm not up on stage I like to sit at home and watch either Breaking Bad or the Colts playing football. I'm a big fan of both and can't get enough of them. Go Colts! Go Breaking Bad!
I look forward to spending the rest of the semester with all of you!
Weekly Response One
It is often asserted by religious doctrines that God created man in his own image. We all know The Bible's creation story: God makes Adam from the clay of the earth and Eve from Adam's rib. Perfect, right?
As we saw in Wednesday’s class, Jesus’s death is another iconic moment in Christian theology. For centuries, Byzantine artists worked hard trying to capture some new nuance about Christ’s demise.
The first piece we saw showed Jesus surrounded by his disciples, eager to catch a glimpse of their fated savior. The women are weeping while the men are stoic. Halos illuminate the heads of only the most pious, elegantly dressed individuals. Just as it should be.
Artistically speaking, The Lamentation of the Dead Christ by Andrea Mantegna offers a much more realistic depiction of Jesus. Shading, a sense of depth in the space, and an attention to detail help the piece to all come together. Meanwhile, a weeping Mother Mary’s world appears to be falling apart. A passed away Jesus remains stoic, however. His firm jaw and soft skin is turned toward the light ever so slightly. Perfect.
Independent of the techniques that brought each piece of art to life--and the clear disregard for candid subject matter--there is one item that struck me about both pieces. Every person is white skinned.
Obviously, there is no way that Anglo-European individuals inhabited the Middle East thousands of years ago. So why is this? The answer is simple: These artists, much like their God, were simply recreating something in their own image.
However, an interesting--and often taboo--question surfaces. Do we as humans share the same component that urged God to create something in His likeness? An insatiable urge to bring about something that glorifies our own image? Or is it something else?
Is that desire to feel important--that desire to see ourselves in everything--just us being selfish? Or perhaps it is pride? Or are we just afraid? Are we afraid that one day, there will come a time when we don’t matter? Our interests, where we’re from, what we look like; none of it will be worth anything. There will come a day when there won't be anyone left to appreciate who we are or what we stand for. And that is scary.
So we make paintings that preserve what is dear to us and they contain the pieces of us that we think matter most and everything in those paintings is perfect, too! That way, reality doesn’t hurt so much. And if all of that is true, then it becomes more and more apparent that man was so afraid, so terrified of a life without meaning that it created God in its own image. Not the other way around.
That might not be perfect, but at least it’s trying to approach the truth.