Love for The General Prologue

As much as I hated Beowulf as a character, I love The Canterbury Tales. The prologue was my favorite part because the descriptions of the characters made me laugh. Let's start with the Knight. Okay, he didn't remind me of any one in particular, but I loved him. The fact that he can be as noble as he is described and dress casually makes me love him. He is humble and a guy I think I would get along with. We can hang out in sweatpants and t-shirts anytime, basking in each others awesomeness; we just won't bring it up or talk about it. I thought his son, the Squire was pretty funny. He reminds me of an animal that puffs out its chest to make it look better. Actually, he reminds me of this bird.All he wants is to look good for other people, much like this bird trying to impress the lady Red Frigates.
The Prioress seems like a phony to me. She acts like this delicate flower that cares for all lives, but in reality, she cares about animal lives more than human lives, and her high class manners makes me think she comes from money and is not so happy to be a prioress. In drastic contrast to the Prioress and her delicate manners is the Wife of Bath. Although she is promiscuous, at least she is honest about it, and I can respect honesty. She reminds me of Blanche from my favorite show, The Golden Girls. With her experience with men, she is much like Blanche, a true expert in men. She is also personable and fun like Blanche. All in all, the Wife of Bath is Blanche Devereaux.
The biggest connection I made was the Summoner to one of my favorite childhood characters. With the description of acne, diseased skin, scabby brows, shouting when he spoke, children fearing him, eating onions, garlic, and leeks, and was a troublemaker, I immediately thought of the Grinch. With his gross skin, loud voice, the fear he tries to instill in Cindy Lou Who, his onion eating in the beginning of the live action movie, and his constant wish to create trouble for the Whos, the Summoner is essentially the Grinch's twin. See the resemblance?
I loved the comparisons I could make in the prologue of The Canterbury Tales. It was fun to relate the characters to examples from today. I had a lot more fun with this than with cocky ol' Beowulf.

Beowulf is not my favorite

My, how far behind am I? It feels like a lifetime since I have even thought of Beowulf. Well, I have my blog up and running, so let's talk about Beowulf, the man, the myth, the...hero? Maybe, but I don't like him or respect him all that much. I couldn't help but think of Beowulf as a little cocky. Yes, his strength is astounding and his heroic feats are impressive, but the way he presents himself makes me hate him, and I could never come around to Beowulf as a character. I also hated the fact that Beowulf had to fight with his hands. It was so frustrating that weapons would do him no good, and only his strength would prevail. As if his head was not big enough already, he has to have the knowledge that he is stronger and better than all weapons he may come to face. Come on. I hate it. I wish he could be a little more human and a little less god-like. I think it just frustrates me because he reminds me of every popular, arrogant, conceded person I have ever met. They think they are invincible and above all others, as if they are more important and valuable because of their strength or skill in certain areas. Beowulf is exactly the same. He thinks he is above all others because of his strength and believes he is invincible and the guess what....BAM! he is killed by a dragon. Well look at that. Now his people have no leader, and he is no longer the invincible epitome of strength. Well, good. That is what you get for a lifetime of arrogance. I feel like I may have just vented a little. I'm sorry. That has been resting with me for a while. Beowulf is just not my favorite.

Book One Utopia

So I really enjoyed Book One of Utopia, honestly I think I'm just happy not to be reading Middle English. It is amazing how contemporary these issues discussed in book One sill are. I agree with much of what Hythloday and Raphael say to the cardinal. The way the veterans are treated in is the same way veterans today are treated. Its really telling. So far book one of Utopia is a little bit marxist, and I’m really into that. Everything I’m reading in class right now and talking about with my peers is how alienating labor under capitalism is and how depressed and empty we feel having to find a role in society. This book also seems to play upon those themes. I don’t agree with Raphael’s system of punishment either. Why not just create a world in which people don’t have to steal? I’m really sick of hearing that that's “idealistic” and “goes against human nature” because we are a product of our environments. “Human Nature” has nothing to do with it. I’m curious about what everyone else’s idea of Utopia is? One of my favorite books in the world is called Woman on the Edge of Time and it's about a Utopia in which there is no private property, humans value the environment, it's genderless (there is no gender binary), and most people are polyamorous.

Also in this book the family unit has been abolished and everyone has three moms. That is my idea of Utopia. It is a society based on love and respect for humans, animals, and the environment. That probably sounds extremist and scary to many of you but that's my actual idea of Utopia. I want to know what yours are so put them in the comments!

Does Thomas More rub anyone else the wrong way? I don’t know what it is about him. Maybe he is an author who will slowly grow on me. I’m excited to start book two and actually really get into what Utopia is all about.

Unequal Punishment

I think Book I is an important view that needs to be seen/heard before the book moves on to this perfect world. Even if it seems a bit odd that the author is a character in a fictional yet not actually so fictional version of their society. Then he can move on to telling the reader about the entirely fictional world of Utopia. If More had started off by just saying that this is a wonderful place and we should all aspire to be there; that would be it. It would just end there. It wouldn’t show the readers what’s wrong with their world, or how to achieve this perfect world. Which as I take it is kind of the point; to show the people what their world should be more like. Nothing can change if no one knows there is anything wrong with the world and if they know things are wrong they still won’t know how to fix things. If anything things will just get worse. As my high school English teacher made it abundantly clear “Ignorance is not bliss”. I think More had a similar idea, he thought it was necessary to show the people what was wrong with their world (even though it was just the smart people) so that they too could see the view he was coming from. On the contrary to his beliefs,while he has the right idea of having a perfect world, because honestly if you could live in a perfect world why would you not? But I still disagree with his version of the “perfect world”. One major flaw of his idea is that, the world can’t be perfect because everyone has a different idea of what perfect is. I’m only one person, but because I think his idea of a perfect world is wrong the whole concept is gone; it’s no longer perfect because I don’t think it is. I do agree I don’t want people stealing the things I worked hard for, and I don’t think they should be killed if they do steal them. I think he takes it to a bit of an extreme. I don’t think life, as a slave is an equal punishment for the crime committed. This sounds a bit dark,  but I know that no one really wants to die, yet the murders (while they lose their lives) never have to face any other punishment. Then if you steal a loaf of bread you’re a slave for the rest of your life (and at that point death doesn’t seem so bad) I know it’s really dark I just see it as unequal punishment. Also let me clarify I don’t think thieves should be killed, but I also don’t think they deserve to be slaves forever. If anyone deserves that it’s the murders. Maybe a year or two in prison (maybe in their day some physical labor), but anything after that seems excessive. So while I agree that death is harsh for thieves, I also think that his idea of punishment also seems rather harsh. I don’t have a really good, strong alternative punishment because my idea of a fair punishment could be extremely different from someone else, but I definitely think that life as a slave sounds horrible. Plus the whole idea is just to dehumanize them anyway. Truthfully a thief is still a person, but they’ll dress him the same as a bunch of people and cut his hair different and cut off part of his ear and make him get locked in at night. Doesn’t that seem pretty bad too? No one deserves that for stealing. So I close with this idea. Items and money can be replaced, people cannot.

Utopia...

While I’ve never read Utopia prior to this, I had heard of it before, and had some idea of what to expect. I first heard of Utopia when I was required to read George Orwell’s Animal Farm in seventh grade. I don’t remember much about Animal Farm now other than: the farm animals are treated cruelly by their human masters and decide to overthrow them, but then, gradually, one group within the farm animals (I think it is the pigs…) rise to the tyranny that they all sought to overthrow. I believe the last line of the novel is something to the effect that the animals look into the window of the house, where the pigs are dining (but they look like [i.e. are dressed like] humans I think – I may be remembering this incorrectly as it has been almost a decade), and they can’t tell the pigs from man. (Yes, I was right! Huzzah! Just found the line: http://www.thefirstlinelastline.com/2011/05/27/animal-farm-by-george-orwell/).

Anyway, back to the point: Orwell’s appropriation of Thomas More’s concept of utopia was what I had going into this task of reading Utopia, though the details didn’t really come back to me until writing this blog post… Regardless, Orwell shows a progression from dystopia to utopia and then a regression to dystopia under a different tyrant, and More, in Book I, focuses on describing this sense of dystopia that he (and Raphael and Peter Giles) observe in society, and we know that the description of utopia will follow later. I realize that More’s writing is dense, as Dr. MB put it, and, indeed, it was difficult for me to discern what was going on at first (until I realized that Raphael isn’t real, but Peter Giles and Thomas More are, but in the context of the book, Raphael is real… I think… and More refers to him as if he is real in his letter to Peter Giles, which I think is More being funny). Again, back to the point: I thought it might be helpful to others to define utopia – as well as dystopia. If we consult OED on the definition of “utopia,” we find:

a. With capital initial. An imaginary island in Sir Thomas More's Utopia (1516), presented by the narrator as having a perfect social, legal, and political system.

And “dystopia” –

An imaginary place or condition in which everything is as bad as possible; opp. utopia n.   (cf.Cacotopia n.).

I think it is interesting to point out that the use of “utopia” is first seen in More’s publication in 1516 (obviously), but “dystopia,” according to OED, is not first used/coined until 1952 – interesting because, as I previously mentioned, I think More describes a dystopian society in Book I – yet, he did not give it a name. What if he had named it Dystopia? Would it change how we read it?

I realize this post consisted of a lot of run-on sentences and whatnot; I went with the stream-of-consciousness approach as I pieced things together – sorry!

A Hope For More

I feel kind of guilty. It seems like all I do in these blogs is speak negatively about our readings. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy them for the most part. I loved both Beowulf and the Canterbury Tales (once I actually understood it) and would not be opposed to reading them again in the future, but unfortunately, for Utopia at least, I must speak about my lack of interest.

I understand the reading this time . . . mostly. It is written in a more “classy” and “sophisticated” voice than which we speak in normal everyday life, but one can find the meaning of the words with only a little extra thought. But the length of the lines just kills my brain sometimes. I keep thinking to myself, “ok, clearly you missed the period somewhere. You skipped a line and that's why it seems never ending.” No, it seems long because it is long. But you know what? I can learn to deal with that.

However, the thing that I am truly having trouble accepting is the pace of the book. Everything just seems to be going way to fast. The characters all seemed to be introduced at once causing me (and my exhausted college brain) to mix them up, and the vagueness and lack of details of the story actually cause me pain. I don't understand how there can be so many long sentences that seem to drag out, yet the story flies by. Books that you can just fly right through are amazing and stick with you. Those are the ones that you can gush to your friends about and eagerly read them again and again with the same intensity and excitement that it was read with the first time. Sadly, Utopia does not seem to have that same quality. After learning that Utopia was going to cover the politics of the authors time, I was extremely excited to begin reading. I love learning and discussing social and political aspects, but I'm really disappointed with the way this book is playing out.

Perhaps I had too many high hopes for this read and pictured it to be something that it was not. Honestly, it wouldn't be the first time. But I am still hopeful. I keep hearing wonderful things about Utopia and I figure that if so many other people enjoy it and praise it, maybe I should keep an open mind.

Who knows?

This might end up being one of my favorite books. That wouldn't be the first time either.

I Miss Chaucer!

Hello! I'm sure many of you are reading this and expecting I talk about Utopia, not just due to the fact that a Utopia posting would be on schedule, but maybe because you wanted to see what your classmate thought of such a difficult reading? (I hope it isn't just me who has found Utopia so intimidating. Because let me admit it…I really, really do.)

 

Anyway…I guess what I'm trying to say is that well…I won't be speaking about the Utopia reading. Not yet. At least, not about the content directly. To be honest, I'm still trying to muddle through it, gaping at the sentences that you'd think would be run-on sentences, but are somehow grammatically correct. I'm groaning at the sight of such generous use of semi-colons, and wondering why on earth he doesn't just use the incredibly practical period. But whatever. As I'm sputtering out what are probably fragmented sentences, More is showcasing his broad knowledge of grammatical structure. Is it awful that I find him pretentious for it? Because truly…even if writing is more flowery in older texts, why would anyone go out of his way to use a more difficult form of grammar unless he is trying to showcase his own intelligence?

 

STOP.

I suppose the question I have is…is this one of the first uses of prose in literature? Is this what it was like to write a novel in the 16^th century? I can't even say this is prose in its infancy, because at any rate, it seems that prose has regressed on the evolutionary timeline. This form of prose is intricate, and almost seems to be a code in need of breaking.

Is this true?

And I…I…I miss Chaucer! I miss him like a sixth grader misses elementary school (or was that just me). I'm not sure his language was much easier (well, I found it to be, now that I think about it) but that once translated, what he was saying was more relatable. Funny, if you will.

 

I'm sure there's some simple answer to the plot of Utopia and that I'm making an ass of myself, but upon reading the first page I was bombarded with leviathan sentences about kings, friends of kings, and something about an agreement about land or money or whatever  kings worry about. The philosopher we meet, Hyrholday is apparently an “expert in nonsense,” which confuses me more because I was hoping the philosopher would help me understand the plot more.  It's similar to The Pardoner in Canterbury Tales, who straight up told us he would be telling us a lie.

I Googled "nonsense." I got Darth Vader with a Brita filter. Okay.

 

However, there's a character that Chaucer created that makes me miss Canterbury Tales and tempts me to read more of it. Who else than the Wife of Bath? Oh, how I miss her. She was a character ahead of her time. A woman who was both sexually powerful and intelligent, a strong, clever woman who was snuck into 15^th century literature when women were not yet thought of as such. How realistic she was to me. And oh, how I hope that there will be a character as likable as her in Utopia.

WOB...AKA Scarlet O' Hara to me

 

Dr. MB said that other students have loved it, so I will keep an open mind. That being said, the book is looking at me menacingly as I write. I suppose I better give it another go…