"From women’s eyes this doctrine I derive;They are the ground, the books, the academes
From whence doth spring the true Promethean fire."
Act IV scene III, Love's Labour's Lost
Personal Love Confessions
I am surprised, sometimes, that I ever got married. I would say that I was too wordy of a person when I first decided that I wanted to start to date seriously. Corresponding with one young lady, I would let my tongue loose and it just wouldn't stop (She was the modest, appropriate user of language). I remember that our frequent conversations over gmail usually lasted each about 1,300 words (on average). I was really emotionally invested in that relationship... and pretty depressed when she felt like she needed instead to go on a mission, bless her heart. But it suddenly came to me (when I found that I enjoyed reading the letters that I had sent to her way too much, and found excitement in editing them and making them appear more impressive) that I was writing for my own ego. I wanted her to like me and I wanted to like myself. Pretty selfish motive, in my book.
Words to Woo, but Who?
When Biron is "selected" to give a justification for the lack of studying and the excess of oath-breaking that the scholars in Love's Labour's Lost have been doing, he alludes to Prometheus (the one that stole fire from the gods and gave it to mortals). Women have a divine fire, of some sort, he says. But, women as books, and eyes giving doctrine? Perhaps Biron means that the love for the women is like a fire; possibly, though, Shakespeare is speaking through him to poke fun at pedantry. I get the feeling he just likes to hear himself talk, rather than actually say something to a woman because he means it. This would mean his "fire" is still scholarly things, like he had wanted to pursue in the beginning. Quite the insult he gives to women, then, if this is the case. Sound familiar?
Shakespeare 1, Erik 0
Attitude and response to the "Sweet smoke of rhetoric" pervades Love's Labour's Lost. I feel that he is trying to comment on the motives behind our words, and tell me that mine were off. Am I saying things because I like to hear them? Is language supposed to be self-serving?
I believe, ultimately, that language reflects our desires. If we are stuck on ourselves, we might use flowery tongues to appease our ego. If we are selfless, maybe our language would be intentionally clear and easily understood by the audiences targeted.
9 comentarios:
I like the theme that you picked out. Now that you say it, I do see Shakespeare commenting on selfish motives in this play. Like when the princess admits that she only shot the deer "more for praise than purpose meant to kill." Is it cruelty to the deer to kill it for selfish purposes? Is it cruel to the woman who has to listen to men speak for their own enjoyment? If so, Armado is a pretty nasty guy.
(But way to go for you recognizing your letter-writing issue. Not many people are big enough realize something like that)
I see where you are going with your "is it cruel" questions, and I think I would have to say yes to both of them. But perhaps cruel could be replaced with disrespectful. I mean, I think it is just so sad and thoughtless when I think about myself above another individual. I guess that could be termed as cruel, though, too. What do you think?
Yes! Disrespectful. That's a much better word for it. I guess the cruelty was more towards the deer, because it had to die, and then I couldn't think of any other word for it in other circumstances.
Hmmm... I'm having second thoughts. I think cruel is a better word. Especially if it is intentional to harm another because you'd rather benefit yourself. I like what you were saying in your blog though, about some things that we just miss out on because we only read the text most of the time (like that song you were talking about). Perhaps there is more to the story here that we are missing?
Well with people like Armado I don't think he realizes what he's doing. So maybe it's just inconsiderate. But whatever we call it isn't really all that important.. Maybe what we are missing out on is an actors interpretation of their character's motives, which would help define a theme better.
I think Armado is just as cruel or disrespectful (I think I like disrespectful better myself) as Autolycus in Winter's Tale. Both of them could be acted out on stage (as we have seen with Autolycus) as characters to make the audience laugh, but they both take advantage of people in their own right. I think pride is the main fault here. Both are so proud of what they do, that they don't realize the full consequences that their actions have on others. Do you guys think this is a fair comparison?
Definitely. Pride is the easiest sin to engage in I think, because it has to do with enmity between you, others, and ultimately, God. Both Armado and Autolycus are great examples of that, always "seeking their own", being much "puffed up".
definitely fair. pride is a blinding kind of flaw. they're so caught up in themselves they don't realize the effect their actions have on others.
Post a Comment