Well it only took me twenty minutes to sign in this time- yippee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anyways, on to utopia . . .
What the hell was the point of Utopia? What was More's purpose? Honestly it was worse than the Communist Manifesto (not going to use Italics this time- take that evil blog of doom . . .) At least Marx talked about revolution.
"Workers arise. You have nothing to lose but your chains."
In no way did More talk about how Utopia was founded. There are no instructions for creating Utopia.
Ok . . .
It's a satire meant to show how bad things were and how things could be better, but what's the point. He wrote in Latin and what was the literacy rate at that point in time? The only people who could read it were the ones that had the most to lose if something like Utopia was in place. Utopia appeals to the poor and oppressed. How many poor and opressed people read More's book? He appealed to the people in power.
And he refuted. Probably because he did so to save his neck.
Yet
He died because he did not proclaim the king as the head of the church
so he had convictions.
But Utopia was not one of them apparently
This book is political and economical, but it falls short because it didn't really influence the society at the time.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
3
Firgured out why tab doesn't work: it's impossible to set up indentation so I think form here on out I'm going to focus less on the style and format of this thing and just post the assignments . . .
So, since we discussed post-modernism in class today, I decided to give my take . . . Firstly, in no ways or means is my view even validated (I mean I’ve only taken modernism and post-modernism). It’s not like I’ve written a thesis or done heavy research, but here it goes. I didn’t really like Mr. Kilgore’s description of post-modernism and how it can be found in any literary movement (such as the Renaissance) that preceded before it. Work with me here . . . I’m going to use a garden metaphor (like one More loved to use). Just because a few things sprouted out from the garden that weren’t intended (such as a weed or flower or bug or anything) does not mean that those little bits are indicative of the period. I can see how traces of mindset and philosophy can sorted be traced back, but that’s only when looking at post-modernism from a societal perspective as opposed to just looking at the literature side. There are two things that set post-modernism aside from its predecessors: Community and style. What was the last great generation of writers? The Beat Generation? And before that? The Lost Generation? Due to technology and rising standards of living (and the academic system), writers no longer have a community. Most writers I know are professors at a university and their peers spread out across the US. Now, they still have communication over email, chat, phone, etc. , but its not the same as discussing works face to face. So, in my opinion writers are more isolated which heavily influences post-modern writing. Which leads to the next point: style. Almost everything has been done before, so how is a writer spose to make a name for himself? This what my art history teacher in high school once told me and even though it refers to art, I think it is applicable to writing: “Imagine art as a pie, and almost every piece has been taken, but a few slivers still remain. The artist that finds one of these slivers has just discovered the holy grail.” Post-modern writers are very experimental. For example, the short story “Nebraska” has no plot. William Burroughs liked to throw a lot sentences into a hat, draw them out and that would be his story. Others set up a mystery story where the mystery is never solve. Others use no punctuation. The list goes on and on. Writers, from the post-modern era, use an experimental style to make a name for themselves.
So, since we discussed post-modernism in class today, I decided to give my take . . . Firstly, in no ways or means is my view even validated (I mean I’ve only taken modernism and post-modernism). It’s not like I’ve written a thesis or done heavy research, but here it goes. I didn’t really like Mr. Kilgore’s description of post-modernism and how it can be found in any literary movement (such as the Renaissance) that preceded before it. Work with me here . . . I’m going to use a garden metaphor (like one More loved to use). Just because a few things sprouted out from the garden that weren’t intended (such as a weed or flower or bug or anything) does not mean that those little bits are indicative of the period. I can see how traces of mindset and philosophy can sorted be traced back, but that’s only when looking at post-modernism from a societal perspective as opposed to just looking at the literature side. There are two things that set post-modernism aside from its predecessors: Community and style. What was the last great generation of writers? The Beat Generation? And before that? The Lost Generation? Due to technology and rising standards of living (and the academic system), writers no longer have a community. Most writers I know are professors at a university and their peers spread out across the US. Now, they still have communication over email, chat, phone, etc. , but its not the same as discussing works face to face. So, in my opinion writers are more isolated which heavily influences post-modern writing. Which leads to the next point: style. Almost everything has been done before, so how is a writer spose to make a name for himself? This what my art history teacher in high school once told me and even though it refers to art, I think it is applicable to writing: “Imagine art as a pie, and almost every piece has been taken, but a few slivers still remain. The artist that finds one of these slivers has just discovered the holy grail.” Post-modern writers are very experimental. For example, the short story “Nebraska” has no plot. William Burroughs liked to throw a lot sentences into a hat, draw them out and that would be his story. Others set up a mystery story where the mystery is never solve. Others use no punctuation. The list goes on and on. Writers, from the post-modern era, use an experimental style to make a name for themselves.
My Hell part 3
There is a reason why one doesn't use mercenaries. You can't control them (look at the Blackwater for example) so the fact that Utopia uses mercenaries seems pretty stupid. Whats the stop those Barbarians from turning on their masters and destoying Utopia? Nothing . . .
I do like the fact that slaves wear gold because if I lived in Utopia I would probably be a slave and at least when I escape I would be rich (and then show the Barbarians my riches and where to get it and destroy my former masters (while heaping a very nice profit.))
I do like the fact that slaves wear gold because if I lived in Utopia I would probably be a slave and at least when I escape I would be rich (and then show the Barbarians my riches and where to get it and destroy my former masters (while heaping a very nice profit.))
My Hell part 2
opps, still can't get this thing, but I've got an idea, maybe I'll just post straight to this (even though I don't like the format), so lets see how it works . . .
(if I hit tab one more time and it brings me down to the labels, I'm going to hurt somebody (probably an innocent bug)).
damnit, it happened again . . .
die, bug, die!
ok . . . getting this figured out . . . for this post, I'm going to discuss why Utopia is my hell.
I'm a liberatarian so Utopia runs contrary to just about everything I believe it . . .
I don't care about equality. People are not equal so don't try to make everyone equal. Just give everyone equal oppurtunity.
What is there to do for fun in Utopia? Music . . . ok. Listening to people talk . . . kinda boring. There's no unrestrained travel. There's no pre-marital sex. There's no fun substances to do if you're bored? No musuems . . . no plays . . . seems rather boring.
How the hell do I turn off the italics? All I wanted to do was mentioned The Prince in the right format.
(if I hit tab one more time and it brings me down to the labels, I'm going to hurt somebody (probably an innocent bug)).
damnit, it happened again . . .
die, bug, die!
ok . . . getting this figured out . . . for this post, I'm going to discuss why Utopia is my hell.
I'm a liberatarian so Utopia runs contrary to just about everything I believe it . . .
I don't care about equality. People are not equal so don't try to make everyone equal. Just give everyone equal oppurtunity.
What is there to do for fun in Utopia? Music . . . ok. Listening to people talk . . . kinda boring. There's no unrestrained travel. There's no pre-marital sex. There's no fun substances to do if you're bored? No musuems . . . no plays . . . seems rather boring.
How the hell do I turn off the italics? All I wanted to do was mentioned The Prince in the right format.
2
Sorry, for the long haitus, but I was really hesitant to convert all my posts from Word to notebook to this thing, but this second post only took me three times longer getting it on this blog than it took me to write it so hopefully, I'll be able to streamline this and make it easier for me.
“Whoso list to hunt” is an adaptation/translation by Wyatt of Patrarch’s Rima 190. What does adaptation mean? In my opinion there is a huge difference between a translator and a writer. There is skill in translation, but there is no imagination. It’s kind of cool to read some old school translations of Patrarch, but translators aren’t real poets because (unlike other poets) they have something to start with. Now if “Whoso list to hunt” is more of a adaptation than translation then what Wyatt did was butchery. And I find it hard to believe that Wyatt’s poem is about Ann Boleyn. Here is a modern translation of Rima (which I’ve just recently learn is Italian for sonnet):
A snow white doe in an emerald glade
To me appeared, with antlers soft of gold,
And leapt two streams, under a laurel's shade,
By sunrise, in the Winter's bitter cold.
To me she treasure seemed so wild as fair
My eyes fell distraught where they fell to stare,
As if, one poor miser in search of gold,
I might relieve my grievances of old.
I spied round her neck, "No one dares touch me",
Graven in topaz and diamond stones,
"For Caesar wills I always shall run free."
The sun had nigh to zenith come, and she
Was gone in a flash, lost in its pale gleam.
While I chased her still, I slipped in the stream!
Richard Vallance 2002
What is the real difference? There’s a deer. And the hunter can’t take it because it belongs to Caesar. The real poet for “Whoso list to hunt” is Patrarch, not Wyatt. Now whether or not Petrarch’s Rima 190 applied to Wyatt’s life is a different story, but I don’t see much difference between the two translations which means Wyatt’s text is more of a translation and not an adaptation.
“Whoso list to hunt” is an adaptation/translation by Wyatt of Patrarch’s Rima 190. What does adaptation mean? In my opinion there is a huge difference between a translator and a writer. There is skill in translation, but there is no imagination. It’s kind of cool to read some old school translations of Patrarch, but translators aren’t real poets because (unlike other poets) they have something to start with. Now if “Whoso list to hunt” is more of a adaptation than translation then what Wyatt did was butchery. And I find it hard to believe that Wyatt’s poem is about Ann Boleyn. Here is a modern translation of Rima (which I’ve just recently learn is Italian for sonnet):
A snow white doe in an emerald glade
To me appeared, with antlers soft of gold,
And leapt two streams, under a laurel's shade,
By sunrise, in the Winter's bitter cold.
To me she treasure seemed so wild as fair
My eyes fell distraught where they fell to stare,
As if, one poor miser in search of gold,
I might relieve my grievances of old.
I spied round her neck, "No one dares touch me",
Graven in topaz and diamond stones,
"For Caesar wills I always shall run free."
The sun had nigh to zenith come, and she
Was gone in a flash, lost in its pale gleam.
While I chased her still, I slipped in the stream!
Richard Vallance 2002
What is the real difference? There’s a deer. And the hunter can’t take it because it belongs to Caesar. The real poet for “Whoso list to hunt” is Patrarch, not Wyatt. Now whether or not Petrarch’s Rima 190 applied to Wyatt’s life is a different story, but I don’t see much difference between the two translations which means Wyatt’s text is more of a translation and not an adaptation.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
