3.3- What is this story saying about trickery? What does
this story say about lying and the deception of words?
Explain your answer with support from the text.
There is ultimately no reproach for the lady's lying words nor the nobleman's adulterous actions. Indeed the final words from the text say "and I pray God through the bounty of His mercy that He may soon bestow the same thing upon me and every other Christian soul who has such a desire." These deceptive words are not in the slightest construed as a negative thing in the text, so perhaps we can draw from this that Bocaccio is inferring a few small lies aren't the end all, and that the adultery is not such a terrible thing if it brings happiness. As for the condition in which such lies are accepted, the alms given at each meeting the lady has with the friar of course oil him up, so to say. The theme of tying the Church and money together and displaying its negative or at least "unholy" effects is prevalent here.
3.9- What are the implications of Giletta's occupation? How
does she use this to her advantage? Explain your answer
with support from the text.
The implications of Giletta's occupation are that she is skilled in medicine, has a bright mind, but is also more aware and knowledgable of the body than perhaps a lady should be and furthermore is from a decidedly "working class" family (at least compared to the leisure of true nobility). The latter two are the reasons the Count disdains to be in her presence or to be married to her. He sees her as lower than himself in the court, and thus unacceptable as a wife and mother for his children. He quite blatantly states that when the King orders the Count to be married to her. However, due to her bright mind, she is able to construct a plan which wins him back. So although initially her occupation is a curse, it eventually becomes a blessing as she gets all that she desires by the end of the vignette.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Sunday, October 9, 2011
The Decameron (Day Two / 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.9, 3.1)
3. Story 2.7: What do you think this story has to say about femininity? Gender? Desire? Lust? What might the message be for a wider audience? Use specific examples from the story to support your analysis.
This story takes the cultural standard that chastity is a normative feminine trait and turns it on its head. Traditionally, men are depicted as the aggressors, the sensual predators, or at the very least the sexually accepted gender. Women, we are told, are shy, sexually fearful, and the object of desire more so than the subject. However, in this story, the sexual dialogue is described as more of a game between the sexes. Initially, neither the nuns nor the peasant are overtly sexual towards each other, it is in fact the peasant's trick that allows for the 'dialogue' to occur. What allows the otherwise sexually frigid or oppressed nuns the ability of sensual thought it the peasant's 'inability' to speak or hear. Their route into sensuality is through a conduit that physically cannot pass on his own account of the story or, potentially, even understand enough to. In that aspect, this story portrays the stigma that sexual women have to bear in a patriarchal society. Ultimately, this sexual freedom, although certainly scorned by the Church, gives nothing but rewards for the peasant and the convent, which Bocaccio perhaps intended for us to read positively. Therefore I would say Bocaccio is suggesting to the general reader the importance of a certain lightness of attitude towards sex as well as the dismissal of the grave religious associations tied into sex.
1. Story 2.5: Analyze the educative process that occurs with Andreuccio (do NOT simply recount the events of the story). Do you see any repetition occurring here? How do you read this repetition? How does this contribute to his education? What does he learn here? What might the message be for a wider audience? Use specific examples from the text to support your analysis.
The educative process that Andreuccio undergoes is the most basic learning which all of us undergo. He learns from his mistakes and alters his behavior in future situations that resemble previous missed opportunities. With that being said, naturally we should find repetition in the text if it is to be supported. We do, a number of times, primarily with the image of Andreuccio falling from the primary action of the plot and being trapped in a space where he is unable to interact with other characters. This imagery connotes inferiority, deception, and gullibility and is representative of Andreuccio's character throughout the story. There is a definite progression, however, and not every of these "falls" are described the same way. The first fall, in which Andreuccio falls into a public toilet, is the most foul and pitiful of the falls. This fall follows his asinine bragging with his gold florins in the public market, and his subsequent gullibility in falling for the girl and being ignorant of the disrepute of a place with a name of "Evilhole", which perhaps represents a certain karmic retribution for his character flaws. Andreuccio reacts to this fall like a child, shouting and bashing at the door of his deceiver until he is threatened with death and must flee from the mafioso. Andreuccio's second fall lands him abandoned at the bottom of a well. At first it seems his foolishness is to blame again for allowing himself to be lowered into a well by two strangers, but he is being lowered to be cleansed. This cleansing can be read as a kind of education. For when he is stuck in the bottom of this well, instead of reacting as he did in the first fall, he remains silent while two police hoist him up. If he had spoken like he had in the beginning he certainly would have been suspected of something and perhaps arrested, but instead he grasps the edge of the well as he is being pulled and the police run in fear, he is rejoined with his friends, and continues on. The final fall in this vignette is his fall into the cardinal's tomb. He acts foolishly, again! His companions drop him into the tomb and they end up leaving him there just as they did in the well. Using his knowledge from his previous experiences, he doesn't shout, as he realizes this will get him hanged, and instead waits. Finally other grave robbers come, and he uses his knowledge from the well to instill fear in them. Ultimately his actions gain him great wealth, which can serve as a metaphor for a wider audience to act with guile and learn from your mistakes instead of being over trusting and getting yourself harmfully tricked.
This story takes the cultural standard that chastity is a normative feminine trait and turns it on its head. Traditionally, men are depicted as the aggressors, the sensual predators, or at the very least the sexually accepted gender. Women, we are told, are shy, sexually fearful, and the object of desire more so than the subject. However, in this story, the sexual dialogue is described as more of a game between the sexes. Initially, neither the nuns nor the peasant are overtly sexual towards each other, it is in fact the peasant's trick that allows for the 'dialogue' to occur. What allows the otherwise sexually frigid or oppressed nuns the ability of sensual thought it the peasant's 'inability' to speak or hear. Their route into sensuality is through a conduit that physically cannot pass on his own account of the story or, potentially, even understand enough to. In that aspect, this story portrays the stigma that sexual women have to bear in a patriarchal society. Ultimately, this sexual freedom, although certainly scorned by the Church, gives nothing but rewards for the peasant and the convent, which Bocaccio perhaps intended for us to read positively. Therefore I would say Bocaccio is suggesting to the general reader the importance of a certain lightness of attitude towards sex as well as the dismissal of the grave religious associations tied into sex.
1. Story 2.5: Analyze the educative process that occurs with Andreuccio (do NOT simply recount the events of the story). Do you see any repetition occurring here? How do you read this repetition? How does this contribute to his education? What does he learn here? What might the message be for a wider audience? Use specific examples from the text to support your analysis.
The educative process that Andreuccio undergoes is the most basic learning which all of us undergo. He learns from his mistakes and alters his behavior in future situations that resemble previous missed opportunities. With that being said, naturally we should find repetition in the text if it is to be supported. We do, a number of times, primarily with the image of Andreuccio falling from the primary action of the plot and being trapped in a space where he is unable to interact with other characters. This imagery connotes inferiority, deception, and gullibility and is representative of Andreuccio's character throughout the story. There is a definite progression, however, and not every of these "falls" are described the same way. The first fall, in which Andreuccio falls into a public toilet, is the most foul and pitiful of the falls. This fall follows his asinine bragging with his gold florins in the public market, and his subsequent gullibility in falling for the girl and being ignorant of the disrepute of a place with a name of "Evilhole", which perhaps represents a certain karmic retribution for his character flaws. Andreuccio reacts to this fall like a child, shouting and bashing at the door of his deceiver until he is threatened with death and must flee from the mafioso. Andreuccio's second fall lands him abandoned at the bottom of a well. At first it seems his foolishness is to blame again for allowing himself to be lowered into a well by two strangers, but he is being lowered to be cleansed. This cleansing can be read as a kind of education. For when he is stuck in the bottom of this well, instead of reacting as he did in the first fall, he remains silent while two police hoist him up. If he had spoken like he had in the beginning he certainly would have been suspected of something and perhaps arrested, but instead he grasps the edge of the well as he is being pulled and the police run in fear, he is rejoined with his friends, and continues on. The final fall in this vignette is his fall into the cardinal's tomb. He acts foolishly, again! His companions drop him into the tomb and they end up leaving him there just as they did in the well. Using his knowledge from his previous experiences, he doesn't shout, as he realizes this will get him hanged, and instead waits. Finally other grave robbers come, and he uses his knowledge from the well to instill fear in them. Ultimately his actions gain him great wealth, which can serve as a metaphor for a wider audience to act with guile and learn from your mistakes instead of being over trusting and getting yourself harmfully tricked.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
The Decameron (Day One / 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2.3) 10/7/2011
"I don't like them a bit, and may God condemn them all; and I tell you this because as far as I was able to determine, I saw there no holiness, no devotion, no good work or exemplary life, or anything else among the clergy; instead, lust, avarice, gluttony, fraud, envy, pride, and the like and even worse (if worse than this is possible) were so completely in charge there that I believe that city is more a forge for the Devil's work than for God's: in my opinion, that Shepherd of yours and, as a result, all of the others as well are trying as quickly as possible and with all the talent and skill they have to reduce the Christian religion to nothing and to drive it from the face of the earth when they really should act as its support and foundation. And since I have observed that, in spite of all this, they do not succeed but, on the contrary, that your religion continuously grows and becomes brighter and more illustrious, I am justly of the opinion that it has the Holy Spirit as its foundation and support, and that it is truer and holier than any other religion; therefore, although I once was adamant and unheeding to your pleas and did not want to become a Christian, now I tell you most frankly that I would allow nothing to prevent me from becoming a Christian" (Bocaccio 35). In just two sentences, Bocaccio at once strips the hierarchy of the formal Church of any vestige of piety and mocks the popularity of the Christian religion itself. Bocaccio literally lists six of the seven "Deadly Sins" in describing the actions of the Pope and his cardinals to portray the hypocrisy present in the Church élite. He then follows this construction immediately with Abraham's pronouncement that because of Christianity's "illustrious" nature, he himself wishes to become a Christian. This palpable irony, expressed textually through Giannotto's surprise, defines the absurdity of Christianity's growth. For although Abrahams decision to join Christianity may be read as a sound action since he "live[s] a holy life" (36), it should be understood that his isn't the common action. Abraham travels to Rome to come to his understanding of God's hand in Christianity's prevalence, something uncommon but for those nearby or wealthy. Bocaccio sees Christianity as a religion sold to the masses as a road to holiness, but which is in actuality a financial construct of the wicked.
"Before you come any closer, listen to what I have to tell you. As you can see for yourself, I am a woman and not a man; I left my home a virgin, and I was going to the Pope to be married, and through your good fortune or my own misfortune, whatever the case may be, I fell so much in love with you when I saw you the other day that no woman ever burned with more love for another man. For this reason I have decided to take you as my husband over all other men; so if you do not wish to take me as your wife, leave here immediately and return to where you were" (78). Bocaccio portrays the rash juvenility of the princess' actions coupled with her high station to criticize the power of the monarchy and the relationship the disenfranchised share with it. That the princess has the privilege to be married by the Pope of all people and to decide on a whim who she will marry, all while being a runaway starkly contrasts Alessandro's almost complete lack of autonomy, being in the dire straits of getting his uncles out of jail and a sea of debt. None the less, ignorant of the power structure present in the relationship, Alessandro jumps to be married up, just as the impoverished are duped into the scheme-arriviste.
"And besides this, he said a good deal more about his loyalty and his purity; in short, with his words, which were taken by the people of the countryside as absolute truth, he fixed Ser Ciappelletto so firmly in the minds and the devotions of all those who were present there that after the service was over, everyone pressed forward to kiss the hands and feet of the deceased, and all his garments were torn off his corpse, since anyone who could got hold of a piece of them considered himself blessed" (31). More on the confusion that religion and lies can pull the truth down to. Parallel to Ciappelletto's lies are the lies of the Church that monetize salvation. Interesting metaphor here how as Ciappelletto is buried and to be judged by God in complete honesty spiritually so his clothes are torn from his body and he is made nude literally.
"Before you come any closer, listen to what I have to tell you. As you can see for yourself, I am a woman and not a man; I left my home a virgin, and I was going to the Pope to be married, and through your good fortune or my own misfortune, whatever the case may be, I fell so much in love with you when I saw you the other day that no woman ever burned with more love for another man. For this reason I have decided to take you as my husband over all other men; so if you do not wish to take me as your wife, leave here immediately and return to where you were" (78). Bocaccio portrays the rash juvenility of the princess' actions coupled with her high station to criticize the power of the monarchy and the relationship the disenfranchised share with it. That the princess has the privilege to be married by the Pope of all people and to decide on a whim who she will marry, all while being a runaway starkly contrasts Alessandro's almost complete lack of autonomy, being in the dire straits of getting his uncles out of jail and a sea of debt. None the less, ignorant of the power structure present in the relationship, Alessandro jumps to be married up, just as the impoverished are duped into the scheme-arriviste.
"And besides this, he said a good deal more about his loyalty and his purity; in short, with his words, which were taken by the people of the countryside as absolute truth, he fixed Ser Ciappelletto so firmly in the minds and the devotions of all those who were present there that after the service was over, everyone pressed forward to kiss the hands and feet of the deceased, and all his garments were torn off his corpse, since anyone who could got hold of a piece of them considered himself blessed" (31). More on the confusion that religion and lies can pull the truth down to. Parallel to Ciappelletto's lies are the lies of the Church that monetize salvation. Interesting metaphor here how as Ciappelletto is buried and to be judged by God in complete honesty spiritually so his clothes are torn from his body and he is made nude literally.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Tykwer's "Run Lola Run"
"In a society that has abolished all adventure, the only adventure is to destroy that society." That's a big part of what I now like about Run Lola Run since talking in class about the film. At first, the hugely comedic aspect of Run Lola Run kind of threw me off and made it seem kind of like a cheesy adventure movie going for visceral stimulation. And that's really boring and basic. It's really cool to think about the rebel element in 90s Germany and the construction in the film of the heroine being a pretty typically "unlikeable" character fighting against patriarchal, capitalistic society. Which is why, I guess, that a lot of intellectual-types and critics really enjoyed and passed it on. I mean Germany used to be this really rad place back in the early 90s, once the wall fell down all the creative types and artists and vagrants kind of took over Eastern Berlin and made it probably one of the most creatively dense places in the world. Maybe Run Lola Run was kind of looking at that culture with forlorn eyes, or something. I mean philosophically, in the movie, it speaks to determinism and fate. How it's portrayed that Lola sort of drives her fate in the three sections of the movie, but also how after she gets the money and everything seems to be going well in the second section she gets trumped by random circumstance. Which brings up questions like is there any reason in the world, how autonomous are we, where is the locus of control for us? My favorite bits of the movie that really spoke to me were the two scenes that Lola and Ronnie were in bed with the red filter. They were beautiful. And the red filter took out the harshness of Lola's hair and made them both look more natural. Also, in those scenes, there wasn't the intense cartoon-ish/comedic aspect of all the characters and the over-acting and such. And I think that's supposed to strike a nerve in people, because Tykwer's making the point; "do this! this is the type of love we need in the world! not hallmark engagement rings marrying the investment banker moving to martha's vineyard and two-and-a-half kids bullshit!"
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
The King With The Lion (Yvain) pg.353-380
In The Knight With The Lion, Chrétien further defines what it means to be truly honorable as a knight outside of the superficial realm of tournaments and aimless adventure. A theme that stands out in the text and proves to be most beneficial in the true honor of its main character is humility. At the beginning of the text, Yvain is portrayed as a fiery juvenile knight errant, who although acting in good cause, betrays a self-centered, attention-gaining flaw in his first action in the text. Spurred on by the words of the knight Kay, Yvain leaves in the middle of the night so he can get to the adventure first and claim the honor for himself. Eventually he does gain the repute of having won over the land of the well and the stone, and even knocks Kay off his horse, seemingly boosting his honor in full circle. However immediately upon this spike in respect, he abandons his wife and castle to go on jousting matches with Gawain, which turns out to be disastrous for both Yvain himself and Laudine. The main conflict of the story reaches its climax as Laudine's messenger confronts Yvain in front of the court, displaying the facade of great honor Yvain built around him crumbling. Chrétien shows us the true cost of an overblown image without true merit through Yvain's nervous breakdown and complete loss of humanity. Yvain eventually has a turnaround and slays a serpent fighting with a lion which represents Yvain beginning to overcome his insanity, his vanity, and his wild youth. The lion is personified to be the pure image of loyalty and humility, following Yvain's every order, never being presumptuous to attack or leave his side without Yvain allowing it. And in every battle that Yvain undertakes from there on out in the story (all of which are selfless battles for others), the lion helps him overcome his adversary. This is a symbol of humility helping us overcome difficulties and be more capable of helping others. By the end of the story, Yvain pays no attention to the mocking words of the sweatshop-court, a stark difference from the effects of Kay's words earlier in the story, and is not distracted by the challenge of fighting the two demons, but is instead forced to undertake it so he could be able to leave and help the younger sister. The final display of humility before the end of the story is portrayed between the two most respected knights in King Arthur's court, proving it is a most honorable trait.
Monday, September 19, 2011
The Knight with the Lion (Yvain) pg. 324-353
4. At the mid-point of the romance we have Yvain’s encounter with the snake and the lion. What do these animals represent within the romance (and within popular mythology)? What is the dilemma Yvain faces here (on a deeper level)?
When reading this question I struggled to recall pertinent myths that contained lions or serpents. The serpent of the Bible came to mind first, but the serpent solely representing the devil in Yvain didn't stick so much. The only mythological creature I could think of that even contained a lion was the chimera; part lion, part serpent, part eagle, and that at first didn't seem to hold relevance to the text. Upon considering further Yvain's dilemma in the text, and the contextual meaning of this drama for medieval times, however, the chimera made excellent sense.
Yvain struggles against an internal conflict of identity at this point in the story. His personal sense of honor and his renowned glory among the land built an untouchable image from his perspective. Yvain believed himself to be perfected from his ventures with Gawain, but he forgets his promise and utterly fails to uphold his word to his wife Laudine. Upon hearing the words of Laudine's messenger, words that entirely strip him of his male aegis, his character is torn in two. Yvain struggles between the pressure to maintain his honor among the court and the necessity to express his despair. This disillusionment breaks Yvain and sends him into the depths of insanity.
When Yvain comes upon the serpent fighting the lion I believe it's a symbol of conquering shame and insanity to uphold honor. The serpent and the lion fighting one another mirror Yvain's conflict of identity, and his ability to entirely slay the serpent represent his ability as a man to move past his shame and regain his person and his knighthood.
When reading this question I struggled to recall pertinent myths that contained lions or serpents. The serpent of the Bible came to mind first, but the serpent solely representing the devil in Yvain didn't stick so much. The only mythological creature I could think of that even contained a lion was the chimera; part lion, part serpent, part eagle, and that at first didn't seem to hold relevance to the text. Upon considering further Yvain's dilemma in the text, and the contextual meaning of this drama for medieval times, however, the chimera made excellent sense.
Yvain struggles against an internal conflict of identity at this point in the story. His personal sense of honor and his renowned glory among the land built an untouchable image from his perspective. Yvain believed himself to be perfected from his ventures with Gawain, but he forgets his promise and utterly fails to uphold his word to his wife Laudine. Upon hearing the words of Laudine's messenger, words that entirely strip him of his male aegis, his character is torn in two. Yvain struggles between the pressure to maintain his honor among the court and the necessity to express his despair. This disillusionment breaks Yvain and sends him into the depths of insanity.
When Yvain comes upon the serpent fighting the lion I believe it's a symbol of conquering shame and insanity to uphold honor. The serpent and the lion fighting one another mirror Yvain's conflict of identity, and his ability to entirely slay the serpent represent his ability as a man to move past his shame and regain his person and his knighthood.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
The King With The Lion (Yvain) pg. 295-324
2. What do you make of Calogrenant’s story? The reasons for its genesis? What particular elements in the story strike you as interesting or bizarre? How do you interpret these elements?
The best I can make of Calogrenant's story and adventure at this point is that they set a mirror opposite for Yvain's quest. Calogrenant, setting off to prove his courage and strengths, acts cowardly at almost every turn in his tale. First, as he leaves the vavasor's brattice, he describes his fear of the wild bulls he sees. Following that he comes upon the grotesque peasant which he dares not speak to until the peasant's intentions are made clear. At least he follows the path down to the magical tree and pool, gets bested by the knight (and describes in detail his fear / incompetence throughout the battle), and finally doesn't seek to regain his honor and simply returns the way he came. Therefore I cannot think of other reasons for its genesis besides a confessionary nature or seeking retribution from the aid of another knight. There were a number of elements in the story that struck me as almost absurdist. Firstly entering into this town / brattice (not really entirely sure what that is at this point) he is greeted with great respect, a gong is struck three times, he's entirely taken care of, and then left with a beautiful maiden until dinner. Perhaps I'm missing something because I don't know the customs of hosts in medieval times, but that section seemed a bit odd, for sure, and it's all breezed over so quickly as if it's natural and seemingly unimportant. Anyway, Calogrenant sets off the next morning and meets some sort of brutish peasant that is overseeing the wild beasts in a forest. The peasant speaks with a sort of mystic shortness that I surmise contains some foreshadowing or thematic overlay or something. Finally, the last bit that I found bizarre was how absolutely incensed the knight that fought Calogrenant was, without a word spoken between them. Apparently Calogrenant was supposed to challenge him? Or he destroyed his home? The knight is quite unclear. All I can make of it all is fleshing out Calogrenant's role as a coward in the story. I look forward to hearing what other people say in Friday's class though, definitely. I'm left a bit dumbstruck. Maybe I'll update this if more comes to me.
The best I can make of Calogrenant's story and adventure at this point is that they set a mirror opposite for Yvain's quest. Calogrenant, setting off to prove his courage and strengths, acts cowardly at almost every turn in his tale. First, as he leaves the vavasor's brattice, he describes his fear of the wild bulls he sees. Following that he comes upon the grotesque peasant which he dares not speak to until the peasant's intentions are made clear. At least he follows the path down to the magical tree and pool, gets bested by the knight (and describes in detail his fear / incompetence throughout the battle), and finally doesn't seek to regain his honor and simply returns the way he came. Therefore I cannot think of other reasons for its genesis besides a confessionary nature or seeking retribution from the aid of another knight. There were a number of elements in the story that struck me as almost absurdist. Firstly entering into this town / brattice (not really entirely sure what that is at this point) he is greeted with great respect, a gong is struck three times, he's entirely taken care of, and then left with a beautiful maiden until dinner. Perhaps I'm missing something because I don't know the customs of hosts in medieval times, but that section seemed a bit odd, for sure, and it's all breezed over so quickly as if it's natural and seemingly unimportant. Anyway, Calogrenant sets off the next morning and meets some sort of brutish peasant that is overseeing the wild beasts in a forest. The peasant speaks with a sort of mystic shortness that I surmise contains some foreshadowing or thematic overlay or something. Finally, the last bit that I found bizarre was how absolutely incensed the knight that fought Calogrenant was, without a word spoken between them. Apparently Calogrenant was supposed to challenge him? Or he destroyed his home? The knight is quite unclear. All I can make of it all is fleshing out Calogrenant's role as a coward in the story. I look forward to hearing what other people say in Friday's class though, definitely. I'm left a bit dumbstruck. Maybe I'll update this if more comes to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)