Justifying My Degree... Again?

I just realized that I owe half of my university degree to a failed model of encounter from the Elizabethan age of discovery… Depressing, but fun!

After spending the entire semester compiling evidence that supported the importance of my Arts degree in English (see “Justifying My Degree”), I have now also found a root for my Environmental Studies minor!

Looking at narratives of discovery and encounter, we discussed the “myth of unfathomable bounty” that is alluded to in Raleigh’s “The Discovery of the Large, Rich, and Beautiful Empire of Guiana.”  Raleigh takes time to list some of the various wildlife and landscapes of Guiana, but says that to list them in full exhaustion would bore the reader (350, right column).  Instead, Raleigh simply concludes, “that both for health, good air pleasure and riches, I am resolved it cannot be equaled by any region” (350).  Ultimately, Raleigh expresses the land as having unfathomable bounty, or endless richness, which was essential considering colonial desires for an expanded market.  This mentality, however, is problematic and in its continuance throughout western history, it has led to the threatened state of our environment and its resources.

            Here’s where I come in.  As first-year student I was introduced to this massive, environmental degradation in one of my science, elective courses.  Following that semester, I registered to start a minor in Environmental Studies to become more informed and find a way to do my part to make change.  Now, as a fourth-year English major, I’m finally finding out that there is a lot more in common between my major and minor that I once thought… What a way to finish!

"Requirimento" and Canadian Change

In the last few days, I have found myself fairly extensively engaged with the goings on of the oncoming election.  After learning about the “Requirimento” today in class and the connections it has with our current worldviews, it made me think about where we are as a nation and where we are headed (I had to make a connection with the election, I have been slightly obsessed).

First to address the Conquistadors’ document, “Requirimento.”  This text, which was required to be read upon landing in a new territory, establishes the duty of the Conquistadors to inhabit the land and outlines the mandatory assimilation of existing indigenous inhabitants under the name of God.  What is laid out in this document initiates the trend of our failure to accept difference, an unfortunate pattern of trampling otherness around the world, a disturbing precedent.  The narratives of discovery or encounter that follow thus become imperial, slave, and oppressive narratives. 

Our (Canadian) history and the history of all other colonizing nations are tainted with this truth, yet the natural tendency is to do all that can be done to forget about it.  History books fail to provide realistic accounts between the colonizer and the colonized.  People simply deny the facts.  Canadians have always prided themselves on being the emancipation destination for slaves who came from plantations in the United States.  What they fail to recognize is that entering the second half of the twentieth century, Dresden, Ontario, a small community in southwestern Ontario, was home to legal (public legislation was passed) racial discrimination!  Canada has its blemishes – it’s a fact.  A prime example of this ignorance comes from our very own Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, who said at the G20 summit in 2009, that Canadians, “have no history of colonialism. So we have all of the things that many people admire about the great powers but none of the things that threaten or bother them” (http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/derrick/2009/09/harper-denial-g20-canada-has-no-history-colonialism).  So we just grew out of the ground?  How can we still fail to acknowledge our faults?  How are the precedents set by documents like the “Requiremento” supposed to be broken with someone at the helm who cannot even admit that our nation is founded on colonialism?  Once again, I’m troubled.

            It’s unfortunate that out of a period of so much excitement and innovation, there are also these extremely sour moments.  What is more unfortunate is that we can maintain a similar mentality when we have been made aware of the deeply unsettling repercussions of our actions that result from this worldview.

Allegory and Bakhtin

           Allegorical texts have dominated the content of this course.  Whether through the creation of deception or the dissimulative self in monarchic writing, the subversions a domineering society in non-aristocratic writing, or the various layers of meaning coming out of Faustus, allegory was a major component of effective writing in the Elizabethan period.  This idea of multiple levels of narration brought me to Mikhail Bakhtin’s theory on the dialogicand heteroglossia.

            By second-year I was quite familiar with Bakhtin’s work and have had it in my theoretical, mind bank for a few years now.  Therefore, when I read a text, the notions of stratification of language and authorial intent are always on my mind.  I am always seeking out ways in which the authorial voice projects itself on the text, where there is an inconsistency in voice.  While it can be quite heavy material to grasp, and I may have wished I hadn’t had to get through it at some points, I am glad I do have this knowledge, insofar as I am able to critically engage with texts and always challenge aspects that may be deemed questionable. 

            I have been thinking about this throughout the course and how easy it has been for us to point out the anxieties present in monarchic writing, or decipher the metaphors in subversive poetry.  Sometimes I wonder though, or questions arise in class, about how the people of the Elizabethan period reacted to these texts?  Did they see the anxieties surfacing?  Did they understand that James was arguing for his divine kingship purely out of self-interest?  If they wanted to rebel, or find truth, would they be able to interpret the messages that were hidden amongst the writings Shakespeare, More, etc.?

I can only imagine how different Elizabethan England might have been, if Bakhtin was readily available for people to read and learn from…

The Poetics of Shatner

           During our discussion of Sidney's "The Defense of Poesy" all I could think about was William Shatner.  Shatner has made a living off the effective combination of what Sidney discusses as ancient and modern approaches to prosody.

           Ancient techniques focused on the pronunciation of vowels and the use of long and short syllabic patterns.  On the other hand, the modern style emphasized the importance of accents and how they were strung together, or words were left unaccented.  Sidney claims that English is the most fit language for poetry, going through other dominant languages of the world and the limitations they impose on the creation of and variation in poetry.  To see Shatner put this theory to work check out the this video:

If Philip Sidney were still alive today I think he would be proud of old Billy Shatner! 

The Famous Flying Mustache!

           What do you do when your mustache starts to peel off your face in the middle of a live, nationally broadcasted, TV performance of King Lear?  Ignore it.  And boy did Orson Welles do that ever so well.

           While Lear and the Fool walk through the field in the storm, close-up shots reveal that Welles's mustache is trying to get away.  Almost like a massive combover in the wind, the little strand of fake air stretches out into the abyss.  Given one opportunity to fix the problem as a character enters the scene, Welles casually turns away from the camera, remaining in character and reaches up to stick it back on.  Despite his best efforts though, the little streamer finds a way to break free again and this time Welles just rolls with it.

           For Welles to make the slick costume adjustment he does, is unbelievable.  With the pressure of the cameras constantly rolling, on a no-interruption performance, Welles keeps his cool and improvises.  What I am interested to know is how many other things went slightly awry, but were undetected.  Had the lighting not so conveniently highlighted that strand of hair, it might have gone unnoticed.  The only reason I was able to catch Welles's readjustment, was because I was focusing on him solely for that purpose, to see if he would try to fix it.

Overall, I thought this performance of King Lear was quite astounding.  Although it was hard not to crack a smile at some points (Oswald's death in particular) I was fascinated by the set and the cohesiveness of the play.

Cassidy gives this performance two thumbs up!

Orson Welles as King Lear
(Before the mustache fiasco)

The Joker as the Shakespearean Fool

            Now that I have started I don’t know if I’ll be able to stop.  After writing my reflection on the Joker and Aristotelian tragedy I started thinking about him as a modern deployment of the Shakespearean fool… her me out.

            The Shakespearean fool is a recurring character type in Shakespeare’s plays, often depicted as a peasant or “groundling,” existing outside the social sphere and called upon to comment on the state of the monarchy.  Fools actually existed in the court at the time, so this wasn’t some random Shakespearean invention.  These fools, as Shakespeare deploys them, were brought in the court to comment on the monarchy in a funny, honest, critical, but inoffensive way – a stressful, high-risk task.

            Shakespeare understood the potential this character type offered to his work.  The voice of the fool could be used as an outlet for the expression of Shakespeare’s opinions on social and political issues dealt with in his writing.  Having these socio-political critiques coming from a figure whose job it was to make these claims, Shakespeare distances himself from the implications and intent of the text, ultimately avoiding convictions of heresy.

So how does this apply to the Joker?

First, let’s go back to Joker’s monologue in my last reflection.  Dressed as a nurse and definitely considered an outsider, Joker openly comments on the irrationality of the authorities’ narrow-minded and linear way of thinking.  He tells Harvey that they are all “schemers,” that they have plans and think they can control everything, when the reality is in fact the opposite.  An outsider, honestly critiquing the state of the authoritative system… sound familiar?

My second example comes from Alan Moore’s graphic novel, The Killing Joke.  The Joker dominates the plot of this story, as he contemplates the root of his insanity and attempts to convince Batman and Commissioner Gordon that all it takes is “one bad day” in the madness of the world for someone to go off the deep end. 

Joker comments on memory, reasoning, and madness.

Joker: "One bad day"

At one point in the text, the Joker sings a song for Gordon that resembles the fool’s rhymes in King Lear quite closely.  Critiquing the world and the justice system that Gordon has so much faith in, Joker sings:

 “When the world is full of care and every headline screams despair, when all is rape, starvation, war and life is vile… I go loo-oo-oony… when the human race wears an anxious face, when the bomb hangs overhead, when your kid turns blue, it won’t worry you…when you’re loo-oo-oony” (24-25).

            The Joker reveals to Gordon that the world’s current state of affairs is mad and that in order to function in this kind of society, its citizens have to go mad as well.  Once again, it becomes the Joker’s responsibility to honestly and critically, with a hint of humour, analyze the workings of society.

Shakespearean influence in pop culture at its finest!   

Tragedy, Anarchy and the Joker

I never thought I would be able to make a connection between the content of an Elizabethan literature course and Batman.  Buckle up – I’m about to!

            In our discussion of the tragedy, Aristotle’s focus on the unknown really grabbed my attention.  According to Aristotle, the tragedy incorporates both deterministic behaviour and anarchic free play, insofar as it recognizes that someone will suffer, but it cannot be determined how or when the suffering will come to fruition.  The representation of anarchy or chaos in art was, for Aristotle, a more effective approach to creating affect than the Apollonian theory of rationality.  It overturns the notion that if a=b and b=c, then a=b=c.  Instead, Aristotle suggests that we cannot know the full consequences of our actions and therefore, a simple linear approach cannot capture the indeterminable aspects that are inevitable in life.  Witnessing a tragedy was supposed to be a cathartic, learning experience for viewers, where they were taught to empathize with the suffering of others.  If the Aristotelian approach produces a greater emotional connection (affect) between the audience and players, this would lead to a greater cathartic response and thus a more influential learning experience. 

This idea of anarchy and chaos immediately reminded me of the Joker’s speech to Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight (3:23-):

The Joker recognizes, similar to Aristotle, that anarchic and chaotic action makes people much more responsive – as soon as the established order is shaken, “everyone loses their minds.”  Interestingly, this is usually the way tragedies play out, with one or more characters showing some sign of psychological unrest.  Consider Lear’s madness and his outlandish actions, Hamlet’s façade of mental instability and Ophelia’s ensuing depression, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth’s death plots, etc. (I understand these are all examples from Shakespearean tragedies, but this is the only experience I have had with tragedies to this point).  I find this so fascinating that these key concepts of literary culture continue to emerge, even in the subtlest ways, in contemporary popular culture. 

            Considering all this, you might say, that the Joker is a modern Aristotelian activist, setting out to make sure people understand the importance of the irrational nature of the world.  Keep fighting the good fight my face-painted friend!

A Way With the Ladies

            After class today, I was telling a friend about John Donne’s “The Flea” and its seductive, eroticizing of the flea as a means of “picking up.”  It got me thinking about some of the sleezeballs that go around bars looking to “hook up” and how Donne’s character doesn’t come off much different.

Eloquent in his speech, the man is essentially a smooth-talker asking crudely, under the guise of allegorical elegance, “Wanna exchange bodily fluids?”  He plays on the phrase “carpe diem” (or seize the moment), a common technique in seduction pieces, suggesting that since their blood is already mixed in the flea, there’s no “sin” or “shame” in them getting together since, “this, alas, is more than we would do” (9).

Upon hearing this, my friend, a science student in a first-year English course, told me about a poem they studied by Andrew Marvell called “To His Coy Mistress,” and how he uses similar tactics in his attempts to woo a woman.  Interestingly, the poem is in our anthology so I was able to look at it afterward and man, is Marvell ever a sleezeball!  He is the epitome of the word. 

Basically, his poem starts with the speaker showering the mistress with romantic ideas of spending eternity together, during which he would praise her like a goddess.  Marvell says, “An hundred years should go to praise / Thine eyes, and on thy forehead gaze. / Two hundred to adore each breast: / But thirty thousand to the rest” (13-16).  While this sounds all well and good, Marvell shifts his focus to encouraging his mistress to seize the moment that has come upon them and suggesting that if she doesn’t, over time, “Thy beauty shall no more be found; / Nor, in thy marble vault, shall sound / My echoing song: then worms shall try / That long-preserved virginity” (25-28).  Translation: “Sleep with me now, otherwise you’re going to get old and die, and worms will eat through your coffin and take your virginity because, if you don’t get with me, you won’t get with anybody.  Basically, I’m doing you a favour…” or something along those lines. Incredible.

"Nice try Sleezeball!" (That's what she said)

So, if any of you sleezeballs ever get a chance to read this, know that you’re not alone.  Others have come before you and paved the way for the douche-baggery you commit yourself to.  This being said, I think it’s time to come down from your high horse and get a reality check – women aren’t stupid and they can read you like a book.  Hey, textuality…

"The Lie"

            Sir Walter Raleigh’s “The Lie” is my favourite course text to date.  Though fascinated by the manipulative nature of James’s writing, Elizabeth’s unconcealed angst, More’s socio-political critique in Utopia, etc., there is something about the strength in the simplicity of Raleigh’s poem that I was struck by.  Knowing he was to be executed and that any convictions of treason would obviously be nullified by the fact that he was already to be beheaded, Raleigh addresses the political, social, and monarchic issues that exist in society, head-on. 

Within the first three stanzas, Raleigh attacks the monarch, the court and the church, three institutions not to be meddled with, showing their corrupt and rotting foundations and their deceiving ways.  Raleigh points to the falsehood and weakness of monarchic rule stating, “they live / Acting by others’ action; / Not loved unless they give, / Not strong but by a faction” (13-16), unequivocally commenting on exactly what caused James and Elizabeth so much anxiety.

These obtrusive revelations continue in the tenth stanza as Raleigh subverts some of the fundamental principles people live by. He equates fortune with blindness, nature with decay, friendship with unkindness, and justice with a lack of action (55-58).  Although Raleigh appears simply as a bitter and pessimistic prisoner, he is encouraging people to challenge the accepted state of affairs.  He forces them to look past the superficial stability of these socio-political systems to their rotten core by telling people, in his powerful and passionate, monosyllabic phrase “give them all the lie.”

While I appreciate the effectiveness of Raleigh’s language and style, I think most of all I applaud his attitude.  Instead of sulking over the fact that he is soon to be beheaded, he is empowered by his inevitable demise, this invincibility of the soul.  He cannot be beheaded a second time for treason.  Understanding this he rips open the confines of society to expose to the people the ruin that has governed their lives.

Sinner or saint? The choice is pretty clear to me.

Censoring and Promiscuous Reading

           Why does everything always have to be so strictly controlled?  Why is it that when something new, provocative, or different is introduced, angst brews over its implications?  I have, for many years now, been irritated to my core with people who cannot accept change and originality, who remain rigid and static.  It was refreshing then, to see someone like John Milton in his work Areopagitica, discussing, at a time when this regimental control was at a peak, the importance of promiscuous reading and vehemently arguing against printing licenses.

            Milton outlines, that whether written, spoken, or printed, speech is a public good.  He argues that a parliament supposedly open and built through the ideas and interests of the people was beginning to display monarchic qualities, as prohibiting those without a license from printing went against the best interests of the people.  Milton promotes promiscuous reading, asserting that in having this mindset, individuals can resist forced ideologies and form their own, individual reasoning. With censorship and licensing these abilities are diminished.

            I wonder what would Milton say about censorship now?  In the recent past, Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler’s autobiography, was pulled from shelves in Chapters.  Recently, there has been great debate over the substitution of the "n-word,” in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, for “slave.”  Are these decisions/censorships really justified?  It hinders promiscuous reading, but is it necessary?    In the case of Huckleberry Finn, what does this do to the meaning of the text?  Can we really suggest that the “n-word” and “slave” are interchangeable, synonymous?  It makes one wonder if we actually live in as free a society as we claim to.  From a contemporary perspective, we are always so quick to point out the backward ways of early periods and the seemingly unreasonable limitations that were in place.  But we face similar issues still, in what is seen as a progressive, liberal, western society.

            Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of Milton’s piece is his assertion that, "If we think to regulate printing, thereby to rectify manners, we must regulate all recreations and pastimes, all that is delightful to man" (818, right column).  Milton anticipates George Orwell’s notions of control in 1984, a text that comes into being over three hundred years later, which anticipates itself, the state of society forty years into the future. 

            I think it is incredible that we are able to trace literary culture back to these authors from hundreds of years ago and make note of the ideas they express that are still prevalent in a contemporary setting.  Whoever said clairvoyance was a scam needs to check out the history of literary culture…

And the Anxiety Builds…

After spending time analyzing James’s texts in class, scoping out and revealing signs of anxiety in his writing, it was intriguing to move on to the next monarch, Queen Elizabeth I, and find similar trends in her writing as well.  In both the speech “To the Troops at Tilbury” and “The Doubt of Future Foes,” Elizabeth attempts to put forth powerful messages that are tainted with anxieties.   

            In “The Doubt of Future Foes” Elizabeth discusses the threat posed to her title by Mary, Queen of Scots, who felt entitled to and planned to claim the throne from Elizabeth.  I was particularly surprised by Elizabeth’s worries at the beginning of the poem where she states:

 “For falsehood now doth flow, and subjects’ faith doth ebb, / Which should not be if reason ruled or wisdom weaved the web” (3-4). 

Elizabeth doesn’t even try to conceal her worries.  She both acknowledges that her people probably don’t offer unwavering support and suggests that she might feel more at ease if her ability to rule wasn’t based on something other than “reason” or “wisdom.”  While it appears that Elizabeth bounces back, going on a powerful and emotional tear, she concludes:

 “My rusty sword through rest shall first his edge employ / To poll their tops that seek such change or gape for future joy” (15-16).

Alluding to her rusty sword, Elizabeth suggests a few things that don’t seem to offer her citizens a very promising sense of security.  These suggestions might include (1) that she is unfamiliar with hand-to-hand combat (probably true), (2) that she has never actually had to fight herself as the monarch and wouldn’t follow through on her promise (probably true) and (3) that even if these are not true, do you think the people would feel more safe under the protection of a “rusty sword,” or a sharp-edged blade that glistens in the sun (something of that sort)?  She says she will “poll their tops that seek change,” personally, with that old rusty sword, I would be taking into consideration that the potential battle they face is not simply going to be a clean decapitation, but instead drawn out hack-fest… yikes.

            Moving to Elizabeth’s speech “To the Troops at Tillbury,” her lack of faith in her people’s allegiance is once again blatantly stated, alongside false promises of defending her people in battle.  Elizabeth starts her speech:

“My loving people, we have been persuaded by some that are careful of our safety to take heed how we commit ourself to armed multitudes for fear of treachery” (Anthology 305)

Once again, Elizabeth really fails to get a good start out of the blocks, as she admits to her people that she is vulnerable and understands that some may take advantage of that fact.  As in “Doubt of Future Foes,” she tries to build off this poor start, to rouse her troops for battle, claiming she will “live or die amongst them” and that “I [Elizabeth] myself will take up arms.”  However, her anxieties and fears get the best of her again, unequivocally admitting she has the “body of a weak and feeble women” and although she has promised to fight along side them, “In the meantime [her] lieutenant-general shall be in [her] stead.”

            I’d like to jump back to her recognition of the possibility that her people could be armed treacherers.  While at first (especially after our discussions of James) I saw this admission as an inability to keep anxious feelings at bay, I also considered that perhaps it might also suggest an unscathed confidence.  Maybe a little farfetched, but let me explain.  I began to think of the similarity between this attitude and Obama’s approach to his inauguration.  Although Obama was protected throughout ceremony by bulletproof glass, he still, against the advice of his personal security crew, walked for a portion of the parade unprotected.  Even with the looming notion that an attempt might be made on his life (a serious risk), he exposed himself, made himself vulnerable to the enormous crowd, even if just briefly.  Personally, I thought this showed a tremendous amount of confidence and established for the American people, that even in times of serious threat, he will not be shaken by fear-mongers and cower in times of potential danger.

So maybe I’m being a little hard on Elizabeth, but when you constantly point out your weaknesses it isn’t very flattering and certainly doesn’t instill confidence in the people who “trust” you with their safety.

Surveillance, Power, and the Telescope

            As part of the tangent today, we learned that glasses, the telescope and the microscope were all invented and developed during the Elizabethan period.  This factoid couldn’t have been timelier.

            In another of my courses, Forging the Canadian Nation, we have been studying John Richardson’s discovery narrative Wacousta and Foucault’s theory of power and surveillance.  We have talked about how the structure of the fort promotes a full range of visibility and enables the British to spot and anticipate any oncoming attacks from the Native people of the woods.  Additionally, note has been made of the recurring references to “the glass,” otherwise known as the telescope, which extends visibility not only in all directions but over great distances as well.  Providing the British with a serious advantage in some cases, the telescope also seems to highlight the weaknesses of the British garrison.

            Amongst the threats of a new land, the British garrison fears their inability to control open space.  Whenever venturing outside the fort (which doesn’t happen often), soldiers must remain in tight, group formations.  This inability to freely move about the space outside the fort inhibits any advantage that the telescope offers.  At one point in the novel, soldiers in the fort can do nothing but watch, as a troop that has ventured out is ambushed in the distance.  While able to see the ambush, they have no capacity to act on their discovery.  At another point, it is revealed that a friendly ship, approaching the harbour in the nearby town, has been commandeered by the Indians and once again, those stationed in the fort can do nothing to warn the soldiers stationed at that harbour.

            It’s interesting to see how the invention of an instrument that could provide such and amazing advantage for one side is ultimately nullified by the incompetence or fear of its users.  If only the British had two cans with miles of string, they might have been able to use the telescope more effectively and warned their comrades of approaching danger…

Transcendental Signifier

In God we trust.  The motto of the United States, inscribed on every coin and paper bill.  The same phrase that saved old Kris Kringle from being deemed psychologically unfit in Miracle on 34^th Street.  How was this so?  If the American people could stand by a phrase that mentioned a being no more material than Santa Clause, how could they say that the jolly, round man didn’t exist?  The transcendental signifier at work again!

            The transcendental signifier has been a key tool in western thinking for a long time and continues to be in use today.  Essentially the transcendental signifier is an image, concept, idea, etc., which is used as leverage in an argument.  Sounds simple enough.  However, this signifier is extremely complicated in that it is always a presentation of something, which cannot be evoked into being, something we have no ability to personify, something… like God.  Usually associated with political or religious ideologies, the transcendental signifier is used to establish a natural order, to create a hierarchal relationship that suits the self-interests of its employer.  This puts the reader/listener at a disadvantage, as they become subject to the will of this irrevocable figure.  The speaker or text tells you how to read/listen and thus we are subject and controlled.

            After reading and discussing King James’s The True Law of Free Monarchies, it was slightly disturbing (or perhaps a little more than slightly) how often this tactic was deployed. As the full title suggests (The True Law of Free Monarchies: or The Reciprock and Mutual Duty Betwixt a Free King and His Natural Subject… a mouthful), James’s text is looking to establish evidence to support the King’s dominance over the people.  If the seven transcendental signifiers in the title aren’t enough to disadvantage the reader, James, while also using the laws of the kingdom and of nature, builds his argument through what is found in the scriptures – the book of God. 

Michaelangelo's, "The Creation of Adam"
            (... is that James on the left? Wait, no the right?)

            There are a number of things that can be flagged as problematic in this argument.  First, and most obvious, is the fact that James is declaring his superiority has been given to him through the words of God.  Since God is a transcendental signifier, who cannot be interrogated on the matter and is purely subjective, there is no way for the reader to challenge this.  Supplementary to this, as King, James was given the privilege to be one of few to actually have the power interpret the word of God.  This being said, of course he would use the text in his favour.  After listing from the book of Samuel that the King will, “take your sons…also take your daughters…take your fields, and your vineyards and your best olive trees, and give them to his servants… he will take your manservants, and your maidservants…and your asses, and put them to his work… and ye shall be his servants” (qtd. in Fischlin and Fortier 58), James then goes on to say that Paul says (in the scripture) this is “ground no good Christian will, or dare, deny” (58).  Does it sound like the people have much of anything to use in defense?  Just to put the icing on the cake, James adds later that they should acknowledge him as “a judge by God over them, having power to judge them but to be judged only by God” (66).  Yah, that sounds fair.  Scary to think that the King James Version of the Bible is the most popular English translation of the text…

            I think it is interesting to note that Jacques Derrida, who coined the term “transcendental signifier,” also created its oppositional term “différance.”  Différance basically determined that meaning is never absolute when someone speaks it into being.  Derrida asserts that meaning is created out of difference, in a yin-yang effect and if this is true, the fact that these opposing views exist destabilizes meaning, as certain views can accept or reject various aspects of a meaning.  Take that James!

"Battle of Wills"

The Saunders Portrait (Shakespeare, 1603)

I’m troubled. 

Today in class we watched Battle of Wills, a documentary about a man, Llyod Sullivan, and a painting, the Saunders portrait.  The film documents Mr. Sullivan’s encounters with a number of experts, as he investigates whether this inherited piece of art is actually a true portrait of Shakespeare.  The documentary ended without a final verdict, except that it is the most accurate, or viable, portrait that has been found so far.  This is not what worries me.

As the lights came back on at the end of the film and the TA turned to ask if anyone had questions, a remarkable number of people seemed to share a similar line of thought – “so what?” “What if it is a true portrait of Shakespeare, then what?”  There was deep frustration over the film’s lack of purpose.  This is why I am troubled.  In a third-year English course, full of students looking to obtain a major or minor in the field, the topic of cultural value was at stake and it was quickly being buried under a mountain of criticism, claims of meaninglessness.  Are not all these students looking to graduate with a degree of some sort in literary culture?  Yet, digging for the truth about cultural artifacts is being deemed pointless, simply for the capital value, a waste of money, etc.  It has been frustrating enough spending the last three years defending my degree to “outsiders,” but now I have to fight for the importance of literary culture amongst people with the same end goal? Something just didn’t feel right.

What if it is Shakespeare? Who cares? I do.  It’s culture.  If this actually is Shakespeare, we can finally put a face to one of the most prolific and iconic writers of the English language!  It’s culture.  It’s what shapes different groups of people all around the globe and should be of particular interest for English students who been surrounded by his influences for years.  If tomorrow someone claimed they had an actual portrait of Jesus would these people be saying the same thing?  Probably not.  Why? Because it would mean the world finally had a true likeness of a religious icon who has been shaping peoples lives throughout history.  I’m not trying to say that Shakespeare and Jesus are on the same level… although, to each their own… I simply wish to question how so many people can simply discount this historical moment, or movement.

I understand that I’ve started this commonplace book on a negatively charged rant, but this needed to be said.  As a student of English I am passionate about what I study and it throws me off a little when I find others who don’t feel the same.  I understand how in some of these more history-based courses we may be learning about things that are seemingly outdated, but it is important to remember how these events, people, paintings, shape our lives.