Sonnet 2: As You Like It'

One Line Short

Or 

Orlandos to Olivers

Perhaps

Seniors to Fredericks

Possibly

Dying Does to Flowing Rivers

But definitely

However You Like it'

Is it arrogant to find augment in
the words? Perhaps the only steps you take
sherzo arguement? Thus stalemate in the din
is best stated for 'scussion amongst rakes-
filthy quips mocking mudbloods-your pen's death,
your ash-wand's ashes, your books burn for mine's
press. 'Oh how pressing the pressure of meth
-od's destruction of your thought to put lines
to mine. You can argue the spitter-spat
and be as ink-globs that rob a book's worth,
but remind yourself that a sentence' fat
robs the slender of one book as one book
compares to a thousands' now fattened brook.

In Response to Jodi Wilson on "MSND............."

I feel you. There is just something about blogging that puts a sour taste in peoples mouths. I've personally come to enjoy it because it separates class into an equal amount of lecturing and discussion. At first I really did not care for it at all, not because I was frightened by putting myself out upon the Internet for everyone to see, class mates included, but more so because I didn't want to put any time and effort in to doing something seemingly extra for class (this is not to say that I haven't had at one time or another intense anxiety over the responsiveness of my own writing, because we are all human). But I've come to like it, love it because it allows a collective response to the Text and Lecture compared to a class discussion amongst 40 students which never seems to have any straight path. It's a tricking thing to get a hold of, but I believe in time you could possibly enjoy it.

As for being as educated in Shakespeare, we are in the same boat. I've read maybe 5 of his plays, and his sonnets and poems. I'm nowhere near most people in the class who've read 18 plus plays of his. I don't think this entirely matters, not saying that being that versed in Shakespeare is a bad thing, far from it; I believe that a genuine interaction with any of his material will be very fruitful for you and that you shouldn't be hassled by the idea of anyone else having more knowledge then you. Instead think of it as a great gift you've been granted to be allowed into the minds of everyone else. We all have our gifts and I would be very thankful if you'd find yourself willing to share yours with us.

All the Best,

James the Rat

In Response to Triston Head on "Language"

I would like (what a terrible word) to start by saying how inciteful of a blog you have. I haven't read 1984 since I was seventeen and all I truly remember is the horrific seen in which it ends, but enough of myself. You bring up an excellent point about the "death and decay" of language. We see it everyday when "my balls" or "ass" replace precise words with vulgar abstractions and phrases that ironically are tell-tale signs of communication going down the shitter.

I would merely like to point out that Ovid is about as original as Shakespeare. He draws from well circulated myths of the time and revisions them into his own particularity of genius. In another book of Bates which I am reading he remarks upon how a genius is made, not from his originality, but from how much indebtedness they have.

Keep in mind what Sexson said last year: "The only thing original to a writer is style."

I hope that my small remarks come across as inciting and in no way demeaning or, shall we call it ungood?

Best of luck with your fruitful exploration into Ovid and Shakespeare and I'll see the left side of you soon enough. (And, of course, if you have any disagreement with the originality of Ovid I would love to hear it.)

James the Rat.

In the On Going Discussion With Geoffrey

I would like to start by saying thank you for responding to my blog (in response to your blog). I was reading through my bolded texts in your response and couldn't help feeling how pompous an ass the critic in ourselves can be even when we try to shut him out. In many areas you clarified to me what was going on in the rude mechanics of your brainstorming and in still others I have a slight disagreeance with certain ideas and concepts you put out. let us begin with those.

The fact that Turner is writing in prose (anything other than verse) has no bearing on the fact that he asserts objective generalizations with the explicit purpose of forcibly justifying his own connections.

While I do agree with the idea that prose is anything other then verse, countless writers believe all literature is poetry. It is an often abstract term. I was merely saying that instead of reading it as a non-fiction theory, or critical work, read it as a treasure map where you need to solve the clues (objective generalizations) in order to find the gold at the end. Geoff, Turner is a Leprechaun, and we want his gold. This is the relevance I was referring to.

Reason and logic are everywhere, including in the work of the school, my critique had nothing to do with this profoundly progressive group, nothing to do with Shakespeare,and it has nothing to do with the knowledge Turner wishes to share, my issue lies in the fact that Turner tries to justify the teachings as if they directly translate to modern discourse as opposed to appreciating the profound impact they have had on modern ideology. 

 I do believe that these teachings do translate to modern discourse, most especially T.S. Eliot's poetry. Everything put out by Turner is in fact heavily influential upon Eliot's Ideology. Eliot's work  "The WasteLand" is considered the most prominent poem of the last century (and it even bridges the American London gap). It has influenced heavily the literature of our age. I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Eliot, Wordsworth, Beckett, Joyce, and Pound all have dealings with the conceptions going on in the school of night. (pretty sure I missed the explanation)

By saying the microcosm can control its own macrocosm (universe) rather then the collective macrocosm you are empowering the individual rather than reaching for an abstract idea (the universe).

Who is to say that our own macrocosm isn't also the collective macrocosm? What I am saying is that they are (or can become) one and the same thing. This is the mysterious mental maneuver involved within placing "the world" within you head. It is an "opening" of the mind that the "school of Night" was doing. (Look into Gnosis)

"one of these philosophies, the one which deems the I as separate 

and alone from everything else, just happens to be based on a meditation using "nothingness."

If you use “nothingness” you have contextualized the term, now, all of a sudden, it contradicts the original idea! See there is no such thing as “nothing,” the word exists, but the idea is too abstract to grasp, like that of “the universe.” 

Look into the Hermetic Principle of Polarity.

Saying it is possible to fit the universe into your mind is saying that its possible to own and control the universe, that humans can effectively become “Gods,” a scary thought regardless of your beliefs.

This is exactly what they wanted to do. If they were reading the Hermmetica they understood they could become gods. And this isn't just a random thing of the Egyptians, Pythagoras stole it from them and introduced it into Greek Mythology. And perhaps my favorite thing ever, Cabalahists (Jewish Mystics) believe that that is what we are here for on earth. But it isn't Gods, it's gods.

However, I imagine you nor I would try to justify age-old wisdom in direct relation to modern science.

 On the contrary, I do believe that age-old wisdom has a very, very direct influence on modern science. In fact we didn't exit the dark age until we discovered  all the old wisdom texts from a 1000-5000 years before that we thought were burnt. I believe that to say modern science has little to no influence on modern science is to forget from where we came and thus fall back into an ignorance that no one wants.  Get back to me Geoffrey and I hope I've been more helpful then not. 

Class Notes 2/1/2011

(The Indian Changeling Boy)

Read up on Frye's Argument of Comedy

For the first Exam remember- "Green World" (Dramatists use woods as a sanctuary for renewal. Anyone in Contemporary Lit should notice this convention in House Keeping)

For As You Like It we will be focusing on the consuming myths put forward by Ted Hughes and critiqued by Sexson into the Mythos of "Venus and Adonis" and "The Battle of the Brothers" (a must click).

"We are interested that Shakespeare is dealing with death and Resurrection"

While speaking of moonstruck did anyone notice a woman stealing into the room and taking a coat?

Keep in mind that the Realism of Chechkov is actually writing "stripped" of anything mythic. Ex. The wood imp became Uncle Ivan.

"The Normal Comic resolution is the surrender of the senex (Egues in AMSND, the protagonist of a usually close proximity to the "city" or "society) to the hero. NEVER THE REVERSE."

The Goal in reading humour is that we must overcome it in order to look at what is going on subversively.

Marriage  is symbolized by a fest. The three things always go together- Marriage, Food, Festival. It is the Nature of Comedy.

Keep in Mind Vico's Four Stages a we Continue the Semester.

I.The age of Gods

II. The age of Heroes

III. The age of Men

IV. The age of Chaos
I. The age of Gods

My spin on the Imperial Vor'tress is that once again we have Shakespeare playing around with his infamous Patriarchal Conceit in order to bring the reader to a higher realm of consciousness.

Also, if everything Sexson has been alluding too, and Hughes has been writing are true, the Trojan Prophylactic is probably one of the best marketing jokes. Ever.

Northrop Frye's The Anatomy of Criticism (including Argument of Comedy) In Full!

So I was doing some random searches on the internet and found not only our Argument of Comedy we are requested to read but also The Full Anatomy of Criticism by Northrop Frye (as well as several other works by him). I'll also be adding it to my sidebar for easy access. Enjoy!

The Argument of Comedy is under the third essay and is the section titled The Mythos of Spring: Comedy. The easiest way to get there is to click on the third essay on the left margin and scroll down tell you discover it.


The Anatomy of Criticism