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.