Sunday, December 21, 2008

Shrek the Third

You may be wondering why my newspaper articles are late. The truth is, I was watching Shrek the Third. Oh, and my computer wouldn't start up. But back to Shrek the Third. I've seen this movie several times, and having just read The Mists of Avalon by Marion Zimmer Bradley (see ISU #2), I couldn't help but make some connections:

#1: When King Harold falls ill, he tells Shrek that there is one other heir who can become the new King of Far Far Away: his nephew, ARTHUR PENDRAGON!!!!
#2: When Shrek, Donkey, and Puss in Boots arrive at Worcestershire Academy to find "Artie", they find that he is used as a punching bag by the school Jousting Team, led by LANCELOT DE LAC!!!
#3: When Shrek announces to the Academy (during a costume contest or such) that Arthur is to be King, Arthur picks up the courage to tell off everyone who has ever been mean to him, and admits his love to GWENHWYFAR who is sitting in the crowd (and just happens to say "Eww" when he does so)
#4: On the way back to Far Far Away, Donkey and Puss in Boots scare Arthur with their ramblings of the responsibilities of being a king, and Arthur inadvertently crashes the ship into an island, where they meet Arthur's retired wizard teacher, MERLIN!!!

I wonder now if there are even more connections, so I'm off to see when Shrek the Third will be playing again, so I can analyze it more thoroughly. :)

Betrayal, The Male's Perspective

On Monday, December 15th, 2008, at approximately 10:09AM, Mr. P. Murray's ENG4UE-01 class listened to the arguments involving Gertrude's betrayal of her husband and son. Judging this debate were Ms. Megan Marshall, Ms. Stephanie Wilson, and Ms. Jayme Bedell. On the affirmative side, Adam Young, Matt Brown, and Stu Gendron argued that Gertrude did indeed betray her husband and son. On the negative side, Jon Hughes-khatib, Tyler Keith, and Alex van der Mout argued that Gertrude did not betray old and young Hamlet.
Opening arguments saw affirmative debater Adam Young defining betrayal as deception. Mr. Young argued that "without trust, love is not possible", and therefor Gertrude did not even love her family, as she did not trust young Hamlet's actions, plotting to spy on Hamlet with Claudius and Polonius. The negative debater Tyler Keith counter-argued that Hamlet only feels betrayed because Gertrude re-married so quickly (she could have simply moved on quickly). Mr. Keith also argued that Gertrude could not have betrayed her family because the Ghost of old Hamlet begged young Hamlet not to harm his mother because she is not at fault. He further argued that Gertrude could have grieved off-stage, and re-married only to solidify Hamlet's position to the throne.
Rebuttals saw members of the affirmative side arguing that there is no grieving present by Gertrude. Hamlet even goes so far to make a fool of her with the use of his play, and she does nothing but shrug it off. The affirmative side also argued that Gertrude did truly betray her family, and continued to by telling Claudius of Hamlet's insanity. The negative side quickly counter-stated that Gertrude is obviously telling Claudius of Hamlet's insanity so that he may go to school, and plays along with Hamlet so that Claudius thinks not of him as a threat. The negative side continued to oppose the arguments of the affirmative side by taking Mr. Young's definition of betrayal and stating that since there is no deception between Hamlet and Gertrude, there is no betrayal.
Second arguments saw affirmative debater Stu Gendron insisting that Gertrude did not care for Hamlet because she did not mourn his death. He continued this plea by arguing that the play about Hamlet's death did not affect her, therefore her betrayal is obvious. Negative debater Alex van der Mout ignored the affirmative side's repetitive pleas by stating that the Ghost knew Gertrude meant no harm, so it is obvious there is not betrayal on her part. Mr. van der Mout also mentioned that at the time of this Shakespearean play, men did not have to tell their wives of what they did, so Gertrude was likely unaware of Claudius' murderous acts.
To counter this argument, the affirmative side argued that a hallucination (Hamlet's ghost) should not be a basis of argument, because they are not real). The negative side ignored this statement and continued to insist that betrayal is not linked to deception, and that the Queen was not saddened by the play because she did not make the connection. Mr. Hughes-khatib ended the second rebuttal by stating, "We have a Jehovah's Witness, a Mormon, and me on this team - we don't lie."
The free-for-all showed the male's perspectives on this debate, as Mr. Keith opened with a dramatic monologue, which was followed by Mr. Keith winning a sword fight against Mr. Young, and Mr. Hughes-khatib winning a sword fight against Mr. Gendron. Where no authentic arguments were made, Shakespearean insults were thrown left and right, in a disinteresting round.
Final arguments saw the affirmative debater Matt Brown insisting that Gertrude is nothing but selfish throughout the play, marrying only for her own wealth. He further concluded that Gertrude has indeed betrayed young Hamlet by calling him crazy. Negative debater Jon Hughes-khatib countered by correcting Mr. Brown, saying "marrying for wealth is selfish, not betrayal." He continued on to say that Gertrude even shows her care about Hamlet's mental health, caring for him as a whole. Gertrude, he argued, sacrificed herself by drinking poison so Hamlet would not drink it.
Final rebuttals saw repetition of all previous statements. The debate concluded at 10:54AM, when the judges announced the negative side as the winners, due to Mr. Keith's monologue, and many sword fighting wins. The affirmative side lost, although they pointed out more fallacies. Overall, the debate on betrayal gave many male perspectives of both sides of the argument.

A Shaky Performance

On Thursday, December 11th, 2008, students in Mr. P. Murray's ENG4UE-01 class witnessed a shaky performance in debating. At around 1:25PM in Room 204 at Rockland District High School, Judges Seth Epps, Colton Bissonnette, and Logan Lubuk evaluated the affirmative and negative sides of the debate that distinguished modern and Shakespearean tragedy. On the affirmative side, Dawson Lybbert, Justin Sweeney-Cadieux, and Ben Cousins argued that modern tragedy is better than Shakespearean, whereas on the negative side, Stephanie MacDonald, Stephanie Boucher, and Rebecca Ritchie argued that Shakespearean tragedy trumps modern.
Opening arguments saw little factual information from the affirmative side, as they quickly dissolved under the heat in the classroom (and heat due to the knowledge that loss would be imminent). The negative side quickly demonstrated an appeal to flattery, revealing t-shirts under their sweaters, each having a judge's name within a heart drawn onto it. Debater Stephanie Boucher argued that Shakespearean tragedy involves protagonists that are larger than life, and take extreme action. Readers easily reach catharsis in Shakespearean tragedy, whereas in modern tragedy, readers have difficulties doing so.
Rebuttals saw the affirmative side reproaching Ms. Boucher for speaking too fast, as well as stating dully that modern tragedy is better than Shakespearean because it is more civilized. The affirmative quickly counter-stated that modern tragedy is not always civilized, but is always simplified. In simplifying the tragedy, the affirmative side argued that context could easily be lost, concluding that Shakespearean tragedy fits all tragedies, whereas modern tragedies do not.
The second round of arguments saw the affirmative side cracking sexist jokes, as well as many blond jokes targeting the negative team's debaters. Second arguments saw disorganization among the affirmative side, giving many repetitive examples of "new" tragedy being better than "old" tragedy. The negative side lost much of their oompf, slowing down their fast-paced arguments to sink to the level of repetition best-portrayed by affirmative debater Dawson Lybbert.
The rebuttals following the second round were weak and disorganized, leading up to a free-for-all with much screaming and little information.
The debate finally concluded at around 2:40 PM, with no closing arguments that supported both side's positions.
The negative side won with a score of 24 points, stamping out the 4 points awarded to the affirmative side.

Monday, December 15, 2008

Activity 1.6

It is obvious that the motivation for Hamlet's transformation is the death of his father, King Hamlet, and the events that surround his mysterious death (including the actual commitment of murder on Claudius' part, as well as the all-too-hasty marriage of his mother Gertrude to young Hamlet's uncle.
The transformation of Hamlet is shown in many different ways:
Actions: The dramatic changes in Hamlet's actions greatly back up Hamlet's transformation. He goes from being gentle and loving at one moment (touching Ophelia's face and pronouncing his love) and then becoming a murderous wreck (killing Polonius and using the excuse that he thought it was Claudius).
Appearance:
The comparison of his actions at the beginning of the play and his actions at the end of the play is possibly the best way to map out Hamlet's transformation. He evidently goes from being normal and grieving, to murderous and unyielding.
Feelings:
Emotion is a strong driving-force for Hamlet's transformation. All the hate and anger that Hamlet feels towards almost everyone brings out the worst in him, changing him into something rude and villainous.
Speech:
Hamlet possesses a naturally convincing way of speaking, that is both powerful and captivating. This is perhaps exemplified best when he speaks extravagantly of what the actors on stage are attempting to put across.
Thoughts: A very self-explanatory example of Hamlet's transformation, his suicidal and homicidal thoughts are something to be left undesired.
These transformations, however biased, are observed differently by people close and distant to him:
Claudius: Having only fully realized Hamlet's transformation at the time of the play, Claudius used Hamlet's insanity as a cover-up for his obvious murderous act. In short, Claudius viewed all of Hamlet's transformations as madness.
Gertrude: Until she confronts him, Gertrude believes Hamlet to be completely sane. It is only after their meeting that she comes to believe that his transformations have lead him to insanity, as he is seeing things (the Ghost in his mother's room).
Horatio: Throughout the play, Horatio was aware of Hamlet's act and realized that he was NOT in fact insane, and that the transformations of Hamlet weren't as drastic as others believed. Horatio accepted his best friend's changes, even though Hamlet's thoughts were murderous and mischievous at times.
Ophelia: Having killed her father, Ophelia is forced to believe that Hamlet's transformations are indeed malicious and he is in fact insane. However, Ophelia lives in denial for the majority of the play, as she loves Hamlet so, and does not wish to believe that he has changed in the way others think him to have changed.

Activity 1.4: The Argumentative Essay

Thesis: Do Hamlet's actions and words prove his own lack of sanity?
Reason: Yes, literally.
Example: In Shakespearean literature, an insane character exhibits behavior that goes against societal norms, sometimes endangering those around them or even themselves.
Example: His soliloquies, which are based off of death and tragedy... not something so openly talked about by a sane person at that time. (3.1.64-98)
Reason: Yes, clinically/psychologically/medically...
Example: Hamlet exhibits traits characteristic to mania and schizophrenia, as well as bipolar disorder and several other psychotic disorders.
Example: Hamlet's grief sets in so deeply that his thoughts of sorrow and suicide get the better of him, fueling his hate and drive for revenge. (within 3.1.64-98)
Reason: Yes, legally.
Example: Hamlet cannot be held responsible for his actions because he is legally insane, showing know appreciation of the nature and quality of his wrong-doing.

Activity 1.4



Activity 1.3

The constructed reality of the play is as follows:
  • Hamlet, King of Denmark, has just passed away.
  • Queen Gertrude, widow of the late King Hamlet, marries Claudius (King Hamlet's brother)
  • Hamlet has visions of the ghost of his dead father, and is asked to seek revenge for his murder.
  • Hamlet is thought to be mad.
  • Repressed feelings burst forth when the relationship between Ophelia and Hamlet is unaccepted.
Each character translates this reality into his/her own, influencing their final outcome.

Hamlet:
While grieving the loss of his father, Prince Hamlet meets the ghost of his deceased father, who begs of him to seek revenge. Hamlet agrees to this most willingly. After toying with Ophelia's emotions, murdering several people, and frightening his mother with his crazed actions, Hamlet dies at the hands of Laertes and his poisoned foil.
Laertes: Laertes has a strong love for his family, and when both Ophelia and Polonius are taken away from him, he feels the need to exact revenge on Prince Hamlet. After long consideration, Laertes and Claudius agree to having Laertes challenge Hamlet to a mock fight, using a poisoned foil. He thus kills Hamlet, but is in turn killed himself.
Claudius: The cause of his brother's death, Claudius attempts several times to eliminate the threat of Prince Hamlet (exiling him, plotting to kill with a poisoned foil, attempting to kill with poisoned wine). Being the one to produce the conflict within the play, it is only right that he becomes the one that later puts end to the lives of many of the characters within the play, including himself. Claudius, by attempting to murder young Hamlet, causes the death of his dear Gertrude, as well as himself.
Gertrude: After the mysterious death of her husband, King Hamlet, Gertrude remarries Claudius (for reasons unknown to us). Noting the strangeness of her son's behavior, she seems to follow along with Claudius' plans, but still appears to somewhat care for her son. In the end, agreeing to follow Claudius' directions leads her to drink from the cup of poisoned wine, dying.
Ophelia: Ophelia's reality is a bitter one; she loses two men she loves so dearly: her love Hamlet, and her father Polonius. The loss of these two important figures in her personal life might well be what triggered her mysterious death, as she became confused as to who to trust and accept.
Polonius: Throughout the play, Polonius shows nothing but hatred towards Hamlet, due to the fact that he is so madly in love with his daughter Ophelia. Being a councilor to King Claudius, he is more than willing to attend to his plans and pushes the plot against Prince Hamlet forward. Had he not been so willing to please Claudius (by agreeing to hide behind curtains in Gertrude's room to eavesdrop on her conversation with young Hamlet), he would not have been murdered so brutally by Hamlet, who mistook him for Claudius.

Importance of the family unit to society:
I believe that it is important to have a strong family unit in society. Many of the social skills that we need are learned from family members. However, for a family unit to be successful and of any value, it is necessary for there to be love, caring, understanding, and a positive environment for learning. To learn the necessary social skills to be considered "normal" among others, a secure family unit is necessary, to teach these social skills and other skills of importance. A family must be secure, comfortable, and consistent, so that it is easier to learn, and one can become or attentive in a positive environment.

Activity 1.2

The major family units in the Shakespearean play Hamlet are those of Hamlet and Ophelia.
Hamlet's Family:
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, is son of the late King Hamlet and Queen Gertrude. After King Hamlet passes away, Queen Gertrude marries King Claudius, brother to the late King Hamlet.
Crisis: Within this family, the obvious crisis is the murder of King Hamlet, and the betrayal within that act. King Claudius, uncle to Prince Hamlet, murders old Hamlet and marries his widow, Gertrude. It is through this act of betrayal that Hamlet attempts to avenge his father, harming all around him in the process.
Coping method(s): Prince Hamlet copes with the betrayal by plotting out revenge on Claudius, and attempting to follow through (in the end succeeding).
Ophelia's Family:
Polonius, councilor to King Claudius, is the father of Ophelia, Prince Hamlet's love, and Laertes, her brother. (Note that Polonius is the only known parent of Ophelia and Laertes, and is therefore the only one presented in the family tree.)
Crisis: What is considered a crisis within Ophelia's family is that she is in love with Hamlet. This does not fare well with her father Polonius, who aided Claudius in murdering old Hamlet. It is the forbidding of their love that drives Ophelia to madness (and eventually suicide), and the rest of the family to disruption and eventual death.
Coping method(s): Ophelia commits suicide (or so it is expected), so she does not show signs of coping. Polonius is murdered and displays no means of coping. Laertes, however, copes with his family's disruption by plotting revenge on Prince Hamlet.
A nuclear family, simply put, is a family with a mother, a father, and one or more children. Before King Hamlet dies, their family is nuclear, having all the parts associated with a family. When King Hamlet dies and Gertrude marries Claudius, the image of a nuclear family dissolves into a almost incestuous relationship. In terms of Ophelia's family, I would not quite consider it nuclear, because Ophelia and Laertes lack a mother figure. If a mother was present, Ophelia's family would represent a nuclear family quite vividly, having a mother, father, daughter, and son.

ISU #2

The Mists of Avalon: The Opposition Within

For: Mr. Murray

Michaela Blaser

ENG 4UE | December 15, 2008

The Mists of Avalon, written by Marion Zimmer Bradley, is “a monumental reimaging of the Arthurian legends”, as said by The New York Times Book Review. It is a compelling story, the magical legend of King Arthur as it is seen through the eyes and lives of the women who held power behind the throne. But it is not only that which makes The Mists of Avalon such a spellbinding story. The very two-sidedness of the various dualities gives matter to greater intellectual thought and captivates the reader’s attention. Some of the various polar themes include passivity versus activity, intuition versus logic, internal issues versus external issues, and follower versus leader. However, the oppositions within The Mists of Avalon that are perhaps most important to the novel are those of duty in opposition to desire, Christianity versus Druidism, and the role of women as opposed to the role of men.

From the very beginning of The Mists of Avalon, the choosing of what is right and what is easy is an observable battle. Each character, however unique, faces a similar trial based on what is expected of them due to their social status. Each character must do what is their duty and pay no attention to (as best they can) what they truly do desire. Though there are many examples that arise of this all-too-common battle, those that stand out are the judgments of Igraine, Morgaine, and Gwenhwyfar.

“‘No! I have a husband, and I have borne him a child! I will not let you play again at skipping-stones with my life! I married as you bade me – and you will never know –’ The words choked in her throat. There would never be any way to tell them of the first year; even Viviane would never know. She could say, I was afraid, or I was alone and terrified, or Rape would have been easier because I could have run away to die afterward, but any of those would have been only words, conveying only the smallest part of what she had felt.” (Bradley, 15-16)

Igraine was but fifteen years old when she was forced to marry Gorlois, handed over to the Duke of Cornwall as a gift from Avalon. In the above quote, she is just beginning to understand what Taliesin, the Merlin of Britain, and Vivian, the Lady of Avalon, are telling her: she is predestined to have an affair with Uther Pendragon, a king destined to become High King. This arrangement angers Igraine, as she has gone through great pains from the marriage to Gorlois that Taliesin and Vivian had forced unto her years ago. This event alone had been an unwilling choice she had had to make between what she desired and what was easy (not marrying Gorlois) and what was her duty, as a priestess of Avalon.

“‘It is a matter of honor,’ she repeated. ‘I owe him this. He let me keep Morgaine, when she was all I had in my loneliness. He has been kind and patient, and for a man of his years it cannot be easy. He wants a son, he believes it all-important to his life and honor, and I will not deny him this.’ … I did [Viviane’s] will once, when I was a child and knew no better. But now I am grown, I am a woman, not so easily led as the child she gave away to be Gorlois’s bride. Now I will do my own will, and not that of the Lady of the Lake.” (Bradley, 17-19)

Igraine was also plenty outraged, claiming she would never cheat on her husband because he was good to her, allowing her to keep her daughter Morgaine with her, instead of sending her off for fostering. She also believed greatly that it was her duty to bare Gorlois a son, as was expected of a wife. At this point, Igraine’s choice duty is to her husband, as his her desire, but the duty chosen for her is to marry Uther, leaving her with a greater desire to remain faithful to her husband, Gorlois. But Igraine then meets Uther, while accompanying her husband to a royal meeting. Although nothing becomes of their chance meetings, Gorlois charges her with adultery and soon initiates a war against Uther. Through her anger at the unreasonable accusations of infidelity, Igraine finds she lusts for Uther. Once having desired Gorlois and followed her desires, she once again follows her desire (though it was once duty) in marrying Uther and having his child.

Igraine’s daughter, Morgaine, inherits a similar predicament when facing the task of what is right and dutiful, and what is easy and desired. Shortly after the marriage of her mother to Uther, Viviane discovers greatness in Morgaine, and takes her to Avalon to become a High Priestess there. She pursues her duties well… until her charming cousin flashes a smile her way.

“They ate slowly, licking their fingers free of the honey, and he reached for her hand, taking it up playfully and sucking a bit of honey of her finger. ‘How sweet you are, cousin,’ he said, laughing, and she felt her whole body alive with the touch. She picked up his hand to return the gesture, and suddenly dropped it as if it had burned her; to him it was only a game, perhaps, but it could never be so to her…’I am virgin while the Goddess wills; most likely I am to be kept for the Great Marriage…’” (Bradley, 152-153)

When Lancelet, the previously stated ‘charming cousin’, and Morgaine go off together to climb a steep mountain, Lancelet uses some of his more flirtatious qualities to make Morgaine challenge her duties as High Priestess of Avalon. One of these greater duties is remaining chaste, even though her desire is to sleep with Lancelet. But as she is so highly ranked and highly respected, she must keep to her duty and push aside her desires for Lancelet. It is only later that she comes to regret this decision. Having kept her virginity, she met the requirements to participate in a ritual known as the ‘Great Marriage’, which ended with Morgaine sleeping with her brother… and becoming pregnant.

“‘What has happened to the lady Morgaine?’ [asked Viviane]. ‘Lady –’ the young woman said stammering, ‘she – she was not in her room, and I asked everywhere. I found – I found this in her room,’ she said, holding out the veil and deerskin tunic, the silver crescent and the little sickle knife which Morgaine had been given at her initiation, ‘And they told me on the shore that she had summoned the barge and gone away to the mainland. They thought she went by your orders.’” (Bradley, 229)

Forbidden to terminate the life of the unborn child (for he would come to be the greatest of kings), she becomes angry beyond belief, and renounced her duties. Her life was soon after guided by her own desires, what she alone wished to do or not.

Gwenhwyfar was cast into a similar arrangement as that which had befallen Igraine at her young age of fifteen, only Gwenhwyfar had a few more years to her age. Daughter of King Leodegranz, Gwenhwyfar was prearranged to marry the High King Arthur. Although she was used as merely a bartering chip for alliances between Arthur and Leodegranz, Gwenhwyfar came to love Arthur dearly, and wished upon him all the best. Early on in their marriage, Gwenhwyfar desired her duty of being wed to Arthur. Only later did she come to fear she was not upholding her duty as much as she would long to. She was in her own eyes, and the mocking eyes of all else, barren. It was her desire to bear a child, and her duty to do so as well, but lack of following through with her duty of giving birth to an heir dampened her desire for her husband, even though she was forever determined to remain faithful to him. Later on, however, she began to desire Lancelet for the same flirtatious qualities that had driven Morgaine so very close to disposing of her rightly duties. Even though her duties then lied with Arthur, her desires were intended for Lancelet.

“‘When I think of that – that animal, touching you –’ [Lancelet] said, with his face muffled against her breast, ‘and I who love you barely dare to lay a hand on you-’

“And for all her faithfulness, she had only come to this; God had rewarded her virtue and self-restraint by betraying her into [self-declared brother’s] hands for rape and brutality! And Lancelet, who had offered her love and tenderness, who had scrupulously stepped aside that he might not betray his kinsman – he had to witness it!... She no longer cared, nor felt restraint. Arthur? Arthur had not protected her from ravishment, She had suffered what she had to suffer, and now, at least, she would have this much.” (Bradley, 519)

At that point in time, Gwenhwyfar had suffered through a horrible kidnapping by a man who claimed to be her brother. Believing that Arthur would not have rescued her as Lancelet did, she submitted to her desire for him, and soon lost all concern for her duty to Arthur. In the end, Gwenhwyfar ran away with Lancelet, leaving her with both the duty to Lancelet, and the desire to do that duty; “Clinging to Lancelet’s back, her gown pulled up above her knees and her bare legs hanging down, Gwenhwyfar closed her eyes as they rode hard through the night. She had no idea where they were going…” (Bradley, 860)

One might wonder why marriage was forced upon Igraine in such a manner, or why Morgaine was made to follow such ludicrous protocol, or why Gwenhwyfar struggled so greatly in attempting to make the right decisions. It is essential to know that all these predicaments occur, in a great part, because of the opposition between the two major religions of the time: Christianity and Druidism. The actions of all persons inhabiting the British Isles between the 2nd century BC and the 2nd century AD (the approximate time that the events within The Mists of Avalon took place) were influenced by the conflicting religions.

Christianity, in general, works off of the centrality of the person of Jesus Christ. A great emphasis within Christianity is put on private devotion and individual prayer.

“…Christian way of life, one that is informed by the call to discipleship and service. The inherent worth of every person as one who has been created in the image of God, the sanctity of human life and thus the marriage and the family, the imperative to strive for justice even in a fallen world – all of these are dynamic moral commitments that Christians would accept, however much their own conduct may fall short of these norms.” (Pelikan)

In The Mists of Avalon, Christianity is a religion that is beginning to occupy the hearts and minds of many people. Gwenhwyfar is the perfect image of a Christian. She does many things to strengthen the Christian religion in Arthur’s kingdom, the most significant of which is potentially the making of the Christian banner. When Gwenhwyfar weaves a Christian banner to replace that of the Druids, she reflects her Christian belief by using her own hands to work on it.

“It was most beautiful as she planned it – blue, with gold thread, and her priceless crimson-dyed silks for the mantle of the Virgin… And into every stitch of this banner shall I weave my prayers that Arthur shall be safe, and this a Christian land from Tintagel to Lothian….” (Bradley, 384)

She also shows great service to her God by means of silent and personal prayer throughout the making of the banner. How does Christianity impact the lives of Igraine, Morgaine, and Gwenhwyfar? Igraine never really shows visible signs of truly following the Christian faith, as she is devoted to Druidism. At the beginning of The Mists of Avalon, she even goes as far as to throw a priest out of her living quarters, as she believes that all he tells is disgraceful lies.

“‘Go and the Devil take you, so that you come not into my presence,’ and turned her back. ‘If you presume to curse me, woman-’ ‘Why should I waste my breath with a curse? I would as willingly bid you Godspeed to your own heaven, and may your God find more pleasure in your company than I do.’” (Bradley, 82)

Her daughter Morgaine is influenced very little by the Christian faith when she is but a child, still living with her mother. Perhaps this is why Morgaine accepted Druidism so easily, when she was taken to Avalon by Viviane. It is only later in life that Morgaine questions her religion, because of the pain it has brought to her (i.e. falling pregnant to her own brother during a Druid ceremony). Morgaine eventually begins to accept some of the Christian beliefs, but still holds strongly on most of the Druid aspects. Gwenhwyfar is quite opposite of Morgaine, growing up in a Christian home. It is her very up-bringing that leads her to believe so strongly in her Christian faith, and thus makes great drastic changes to her lifestyle. It is only when she begins to commit adulterous acts that she questions if Christianity is really all it is made out to be.

“‘And as for Lancelet, we must by now have given him time to be gone from the Queen’s chamber…’ [said Morgaine] And indeed when Elaine and Morgaine reached the Queen, there was no sign of the presence there of Lancelet, or any other man. But once, when Elaine was for a moment beyond earshot, Gwenhwyfar met Morgaine’s eyes, and Morgaine thought she had never met such awful bitterness. ‘You despise me, do you not, Morgaine?’ For once, Morgaine thought, Gwenhwyfar has voiced the question that has been in her thoughts all these weeks. She felt like hurling back a sharp answer – If I do so, is it not because you have first despised me? But she said as gently as she could, ‘I am not you confessor, Gwenhwyfar, and you, not I, are the one who professes belief in a God who will damn you because you share your bed with a man who is not your husband. My Goddess is gentler with women.’” (Bradley, 525)

And so it is true: the Druid Goddess is gentler, but in many more ways than with women.

Druidism is a religious faith of the ancient Celtic inhabitants of the British Isles, and in the parts of Britain that were not invaded by the Romans, Druidism survived until it was replaced by Christianity, two or three years later. (Unknown) In The Mists of Avalon, Druidism is the pagan religion that is the leading power of the Land of Avalon. Although it slowly fades away as priests and bishops come to power, the Druidism power behind the throne secretly controls all of Britain. It is the priestesses of Avalon and the Merlin of Britain (highest rank of Druids) that are consulted when major changes are to be made to the control of the country. Specifically in the case of the Merlin of Britain, we see many examples of leaders that seek out the Merlin to be one of the more trusted councilors (i.e. Ambrosius, Uther, Arthur). Where the Christian faith is one of decency and appropriateness, Druidism can be argued to be a faith of sexuality and openness (both appropriate and inappropriate).

“‘Where is Avalloch?’ [asked Morgaine]. [Accolon] laughed shortly. ‘He is gone down to the village to lie with the Spring Maiden… it is one of our customs that the village priest does not know…’” (Bradley, 587)

An example of a Druid activity would be the Beltane rites, which put simply, was a night of activities that involved blessing the fertility of the lands and of the women. The above excerpt exemplifies the type of activity common to this practice. This act of adoration and sanction would be considered most unsuitable in the Christian sphere of influence. It is one of the greater reasons why many, including Gwenhwyfar who thought the rites disgusting, attempted to establish the Christian faith enough to replace the Druid faith.

But where it is insisted that Christianity replaces Druidism, we must not believe so. A duality that helps exemplify this argument is the opposition between the role of women and the role of men. Druidism ideally encourages women to “free themselves from patriarchal morals and restrictions. The religion symbolizes the feminine power that has been repressed in the Christian world.” (Huang) Druidism is sometimes referred to as the Goddess religion because of the feminine power it embodies. In her role as the priestess of Druidism, Morgaine symbolizes matriarchal freedom. For women of the Druid faith, weakness only exists in a thwarted mission.

In the Christian faith, however, women are characters of weakness. An example of this is when King Leodegranz gives Gwenhwyfar to Arthur to be married… as an extra with a gift of horses.

“‘I have daughters; when the eldest marries her husband will lead my men into battle, and can train him as he will. Tell your High King to come here, and we will discuss the matter… Beseech him, then, to come to an old man who does not want to ride out from him own fireside… If he will not come for me, perhaps he will come to know how I will dispose of my horses and the armed men to ride them.’” (Bradley, 254)

The parallel between Gwenhwyfar and the horses explicitly implies weakness on her part. After winning her way with establishing the Christian banner, it is apparent that the only way that a Christian woman can access power is to hold the power of creation. In Gwenhwyfar’s case, her faith holds her power. There are many cases within The Mists of Avalon where we see the prohibition of discussing (or even mentioning) the Goddess. In the greater part of Britain, “women’s power is repressed, brought down by male society members. The attitude towards women resembles the attitude toward pagan religion.” (Huang) Christianity can not allow Druidism to exist in conjunction with it, which causes the priests within The Mists of Avalon to be blind towards the fact that women hold the ultimate power over men through their power of creation. It is obvious through comparison that the women of the Druid faith have more respect and are favored for advice over the men of the Druid faith, whereas the women of the Christian faith are not called upon to represent themselves and their opinions, among the men of their equivalent faith.

In conclusion, the opposition within The Mists of Avalon brings out the best – and worst – of the individuals that struggle with the duality of fighting for what they desire as opposed to what they hold in duty, what is easy over what is right, and what is wanted of them as opposed to what is expected of them. The contrasting of Christianity and Druidism helps give further insight into the trials that may have affected the though-process of Igraine, Morgaine, and Gwenhwyfar as they struggled to choose between duty and desire. Through the examination of the roles of women and men within these two central religions, it is crucial to understand that the choices between duty and desire, and Christianity and Druidism build the roles of both men and women, throughout Avalon and the British Isles.

Bibliography:

Book(s)

Zimmer Bradley, Marion. The Mists of Avalon. New York: Ballantine Books, 1982.

Web Document(s)

Huang, Dina. "Mists of Avalon: From Druidism to Christianity, Replacement or Reincarnation." Agleam.net. 2002. 14 Dec 2008 .

"The Mists of Avalon." LitLovers. 2006. LitLovers. 14 Dec 2008 .

Encyclopedia(s)

Pelikan, Jaroslav. "Christianity." Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia. CD-ROM.2002 ed.Canada: Microsoft Corporation, 2001.

"Druidism." Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia. CD-ROM.2002 ed.Canada: Microsoft Corporation, 2001.

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Half-way through semester one

Well, we've reached the half-way point of semester one... a quarter of the way through Grade 12. Frightening really, if you think about how quickly the time has passed.
I've begun some of the Hamlet assignments, and I hope to be able to submit them in the next two weeks, so that I can focus on my ISU. I haven't really gotten around to reading much of The Mists of Avalon by Marion Zimmer-Bradley, but the first 50 pages tell me I am going to LOVE it. It's already about a dozen times better than Watership Down, in my opinion.
I'm almost done Hamlet, which I also find quite interesting, more so than the previous works of Shakespeare that I have read. I assume I'm only enjoying Shakespeare's Hamlet because I actually understand what he's saying! :) So, 2 more Acts to go and I'm done Hamlet (which might not be that great).
Speaking of Shakespeare, we've just finished watching Henry V, which was terribly boring (I'm sorry to those who disagree), except for the last couple minutes of it. Yup, the war part was the only thing that actually caught my attention and managed to keep it. But, I did enjoy seeing some familiar faces in the movies... and of course, they have to do with Harry Potter.
For those who did not notice, Katherine was played by Emma Thompson, who plays Professor Trelawney in Harry Potter. Falstaff was played by Robbie Coltrane, who plays Hagrid in the Harry Potter series. Kenneth Branagh, who played as Professor Lockhart in Chamber of Secrets, is none other than Henry V himself. Also, and this I had to double check, one of the court people was none other than Patrick Doyle, the composer of the Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire soundtrack.
So there.... now you know.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Standardization Final

Truck terror

The Ottawa Citizen

Published: Tuesday, November 04, 2008

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/views/story.html?id=416ea666
-e86f-4865-8122-22b7057dfd18

1.
The death of an 86-year-old woman who was struck by a dump truck on Rideau Street has refocused attention on an issue that should have been solved long ago.
2. It is unacceptable to have dump trucks and other enormous vehicles rumbling through the downtown streets of any city, which are dense with pedestrians.
3. The problem has been acknowledged for years and attempts have been made to build a bridge that would divert the traffic away from downtown.
4. Either way, the east end needs a bridge -- and fast.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

:(

It is my sincere apology that it is quite obvious I haven't a clue of what I'm doing, in terms of standardizing arguments. Feel free to critique as constructively as you like.

Standardized Argument #2

Truck terror

The Ottawa Citizen

Published: Tuesday, November 04, 2008

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/views/story.html?id=416ea666
-e86f-4865-8122-22b7057dfd18

1.
The death of an 86-year-old woman who was struck by a dump truck on Rideau Street has refocused attention on an issue that should have been solved long ago.
2. It is unacceptable to have dump trucks and other enormous vehicles rumbling through the downtown streets of any city, which are dense with pedestrians.
3. The problem has been acknowledged for years and attempts have been made to build a bridge that would divert the traffic away from downtown.
4. Either way, the east end needs a bridge -- and fast.

Standardized Argument #1

Hazing doesn't build character

The Ottawa Citizen

Published: Tuesday, November 04, 2008


http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/views/story.html?id=30165251-
70f5-4101-9a15-e7a8048f5abb

1. Hazing and bullying used to be so routine in schools that they weren’t newsworthy.

2. Last week, the report of a hazing incident at a Barrhaven high school found itself on the front page of the Citizen. Society no longer sees such behavior as normal or inevitable.

3. Taking hazing and bullying seriously is a healthy development.

4. At the beginning of this school year, a 15-year-old Hamilton student was stabbed after he apparently intervened in a hazing incident.

Sunday, November 2, 2008

Just a quick update...

Well, I've finally finished my fallacy assignment on the genetic fallacy. What a funny fallacy. You'll have to read my report on wikispaces to learn more about it. Here's an example though: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. However, my parents brought me up to believe that 1+1=254, so Bill must be wrong." Yup... that's a genetic fallacy.

As for my rhetoric assignment, I'm doing epiphora, which so far is a medical issue, but I'll find something English-related when I feel up to it. My standardized arguments? I'll let you know when I've figured out what the hell they are and how to set them up.

And I've already started my second ISU book. It's called "The Mists of Avalon" by Marion Zimmer Bradley, and I already like it more than "Watership Down"... my first ISU novel. Hopefully this essay will be easier to write, as I actually enjoy the book this time around.

Well, that's my mini update (at least in English).

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

What makes me angry...

What really makes me angry is working on a blog and not being able to have proper formatting. So, to solve this issue, I will submit a hard copy on Wednesday so that I don't lose marks for horrible formatting.

Wizard Of Oz - The Feminist Version


The Wizard Of Oz

By: Michaela Blaser

For: Mr. Murray

ENG4UE-02

October 28, 2008


The Wizard of Oz is a movie that is based on the journey of a schoolgirl, Dorothy Gale, from her home in Kansas to the magical world of Oz. Even though this film is about a female, The Wizard of Oz contains several aspects that relate more to the male standpoint (not to mention body) than that of the female. This is a French Feminist view, in which all aspects of a piece of art are viewed as relating directly back to men and their hypothetical dominance. If you watch closely, The Wizard of Oz is more dominantly masculine-based than feminine-based, and that is only through observance of Glinda’s tool, Dorothy’s reliance on men, and not to mention the shape of her destination.


Let us take a look at this wonderful tool of the Witch of the North. Not only is Glinda’s tool in the form of a penis, but it is magic too. Now what male would not want a magic stick, let alone stop talking about already having one? That Glinda uses a slender, pointy wand as her means of power is a direct stab at women. If you take the French Feminist view of the wand being a phallus, Glinda’s whole role in the movie is to pass on the power of male. If you look past her general appearance of a harlot that constantly has a penis in her hand, you begin to realize that all the power she has “comes” from this erect object. Being at the complete service of an object of male control would not be taken lightly by any feminist.


If the French Feminists weren’t pissed already, they would be now. Throughout The Wizard of Oz, we are made to believe that this journey is that of an innocent schoolgirl that is merely lost “somewhere over the rainbow” (Langley). At first glance, Dorothy is also seen as being kind enough to help others achieve their own personal quests.


LION: I haven't any courage at all. I even scare myself. Look at the circles under my eyes.

[…]

LION: I haven't slept in weeks.

TIN MAN: Why don't you try counting sheep?

LION: That doesn't do any good -- I'm afraid of 'em.

SCARECROW: Oh, that's too bad. Don't you think the Wizard could help him, too?

DOROTHY: I don't see why not. Why don't you come along with us? We're on our way to see the Wizard now. To get him a heart.

TIN MAN: And him a brain.

DOROTHY: I'm sure he could give you some courage.

(Langley)


At second glance, it becomes pretty obvious who is helping who. As the journey progresses, Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Cowardly Lion are those who lead the journey and end up assisting Dorothy instead of the other way around. An example of this occurs when the Wicked Witch of the West appears in Emerald City and writes a message in the sky that is directed to Dorothy and asks her to surrender.


DOROTHY: Dear, whatever shall we do?
SCARECROW: Well, we'd better hurry if we're going to see the Wizard!
(Langley)

This quote makes it seem as if Dorothy, a female, would need to rely on not one, not two, but three males. That she relies on these three males in Oz directly relates to her reliance on the males at home in Kansas, that aide her in every way they possibly can.

Now, what about this grand destination that Dorothy has attempted to get to throughout the movie? Emerald City, the end of her journey (or so she believes) and the ticket home, is the palace of the great and almighty Wizard of Oz. First, let us look at Emerald City: built as several erect towers, growing larger in height as you move to the center of the city. And is it even necessary to mention that all these towers are not pointy at the end, but round. If you look closely at Emerald City, you might also notice that the smaller towers to the front and to the side of the city structure are quite shorter and rounder. Phallus anyone?


DOROTHY: It's beautiful, isn't it?  Just like I knew it would be.  He really must be a
wonderful Wizard to live in a City like that!
LION: Well, come on, then.  What are we waiting for?
SCARECROW: Nothing!  Let's hurry!
DOROTHY: Yes -- let's run!
LION: Yes.
SCARECROW: Come on -- come on --
TIN MAN: Hurry -- hurry --
SCARECROW: Oh!  Oh, come on, come on!
TIN MAN: Look -- you can see it here.  It's wonderful!
SCARECROW: Emerald City!

(Langley)


If you were to over-analyze this quote, as anyone studying French Feminism would do in order to identify the various sexist bits and pieces, you would wonder why Dorothy thinks this huge phallic-shaped building is so “beautiful”, and why they are all so eager to get to Emerald City, saying “Hurry – hurry – Oh, come on, come on!” (Langley). Now, if this is not some sick joke, it could easily be considered a flat out stab at women and their supposed eagerness of the male phallus. Secondly, that the solution to all her problems lies with a wizard (read: MALE) is just another stab at women and their standing. The Wizard of Oz is yet another male that Dorothy runs to for aide, and yet another typical figure that happens to be the “great male provider” to all. And if her dependence on male figures was not enough, Oz demands work of Dorothy to prove herself worthy enough of his help.


OZ'S VOICE: But first, you must prove yourselves worthy by performing
a very small task […] bring me the broomstick of the Witch... of the West
TIN MAN: B-B-B-B-B-But if we do that, we'll have to kill her to get it!
OZ'S VOICE: Bring me her broomstick, and I'll grant your requests. Now, go!
LION: But -- but what if she kills us first?
OZ'S VOICE: ... I ... said, -Go!
(Langley)
If this is not a direct stab to a female's standing, I don't know what is. To deliberately showcase
a female having to prove themselves to a male is a sexist act that any New French Feminist
would antagonize over.

In conclusion,
The Wizard of Oz does quite well in showing examples of New French Feminist
Criticism, by providing a penis-hungry "good" witch, several male figures (including one of great
authority), and a great phallic city.



Bibliography:
Langley, Noel. "The Wizard of Oz - Movie Script." Scifiscripts. 28 Oct 2008
.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Watership Down, The Essay

Watership Down

By: Michaela Blaser

For: Mr. Murray

ENG4UE-02

October 17, 2008

Watership Down by Richard Adams is a compelling story of a band of rabbits that endure a long and perilous journey for miles across unknown land in search of a better life. But before the story continues and the journey becomes more defined as the reader moves from one chapter to the next, a quotation (or epigraph, if you’re inclined to better diction) is given to inform the reader of the general direction and tone that the chapter is bound to take. Watership Down is built successfully around many epigraphs that foreshadow the direction each chapter will take and identify the seriousness of the actions that will be taken, as well as integrate into the story a level of literary depth and credibility.

The epigraphs at the beginning of each chapter summarize (mostly in just one line) what will happen in the chapter that follows.


“Never in his life had he seen a river before – this sleek, sinuous, full-bodied animal… All was a-shake and a-shiver – glints and gleams and sparkles, rustle and swirl, chatter and bubble.” (Adams, 296)

Before even taking a glance at the first line of the chapter subsequent to this epigraph from The Wind in the Willows (by Kenneth Grahame), it is obvious that the band of rabbits will approach a river and be completely overwhelmed by its characteristics.


“Peering through the plant-clumps, they could catch glimpses of the smooth, glittering river, evidently much wider and swifter than the Enborne… they felt the apprehension and doubt of those who have come unawares upon some awe-inspiring place, where they themselves are paltry fellows of no account.” (Adams, 298)

Coming from a dry environment in a wooded field, the rabbits were “uneasy and confused… each hoping not to see in the others the nervousness he felt in himself.” (Adams, 299) This is, however, an understandable situation as the largest body of flowing water that they have seen is the Enborne, which is described as being no bigger than a small brook. Among summarizing the chapter, the epigraphs might even (in some cases) foreshadow a major turning point or conflict in the chapter, if not the whole novel.


“His face was that of one who has undergone a long journey.” (Adams, 147)

In the case of this epigraph from The Epic of Gilgamesh, the new warren is reminded of their past when it comes back to haunt them. In the chapter following this small quotation, the rabbits must battle through the newly stirred-up emotion of what really happened after they ran away from their home (news brought from the close-to-death captain of defense from their home-warren). That someone as strong as Captain Holly had been almost destroyed beyond repair, and who looked as if his journey had been lengthy, was enough to impact the rabbits in a way that would later strengthen their defenses and forever change the way they looked at the world and lived in it.

As well as summarizing the subsequent chapter, the epigraphs do well in suggesting the seriousness of each chapter in terms of the strength of the action that will take place.


“The centurion… commanded that they which could swim should cast themselves first into the sea and get to land. And the rest, some on boards and some on broken pieces of ship. And so it came to pass, that they escaped all safe to land.” (Adams, 44)

It is apparent that the chapter introduced by this epigraph must be one with ample action and suspense. And so it is, as the chapter successfully illustrates a riverblock (pardon the pun) that the rabbits barely overcome during their great escape. As the refugees flee for safety, they must pass over a small river. This would not be such a great deal if they were not already tired from the day’s running. It is only in this desperate time that the rabbits take the desperate measure of going against the habits of a normal rabbit to actually push those that are too weak across the water.


“The piece of wood, hardly bigger than a large rhubarb leaf, was lightly aground. Blackberry almost drove Pipkin on to it with his claws… [the board] drifted out a few feet into the pool… [and] moved slowly across the pool and grounded on the opposite side.” (Adams, 48-49)

So as is evident, this chapter is both serious and has a great deal of action within it. Among other such epigraphs is the following from The Pilgrim’s Progress by John Bunyan:


“Timorous answered, that they… had got up that difficult place: but, said he, the further we go, the more danger we meet with; wherefore we turned, and are going back again.” (Adams, 55)

The minute conflict in the chapter that follows this paragraph is enough to bring on a seriousness and extremity of action that is important to the story and its direction. This action is not physical as the previous example, but nevertheless important. It is during this chapter that particular rabbits second-guess their initial decision to flee back to their home (note that this occurs before they find out what happened at their home).


“‘How can you go back through all we’ve come through?’ replied Hazel. ‘And probably get killed for wounding an Owsla officer [during our escape], if you ever do get back?’” (Adams, 61-62)

It is up to Hazel, the leader of the new warren, to help them see that there is just as much danger in going back as there is in moving forward (if not more danger in going back).

At most, the epigraphs at the beginning of each chapter of Watership Down show that the author, Richard Adams, went to great lengths to incorporate various forms of literature to add to the depth and credibility of this novel. Examples of the various forms of literary sources of the epigraphs seen throughout the novel include plays, poems, biblical verses, music lyrics, and even royal letters, the majority of which are exemplified in different languages. Not only do they add credibility and depth to the novel, but they set the tone of the chapter that they precede. For example, a chapter headed by such a quote as from Plato’s Euthyphro is more than likely going to contain an inquisitive or intellectual tone.


“You will be sure to prove that the act is unjust and hateful to the gods? Yes, indeed, Socrates; at least, if they will listen to me.” (Adams, 411)

What follows this epigraph is a chapter where Hazel’s authority is questioned as a raiding party from an enemy warren sets out to destroy Hazel and his home. Not only does this chapter have an inquisitive tone, but it manages to hold the logical setting in place as the warren quickly considers its defenses:


“‘Get the holes filled in! Get everyone underground! There’s not a moment to lose!’” (Adams, 415)

Another example of a credible epigraph is Aeschylus’ Agamemnon. This excerpt does well in setting the dramatic tone of the chapter, as it is the first glimpse of the oppressive danger that is to come.


“CHORUS: Why do you cry out thus, unless at some vision of horror?

CASSANDRA: The house reeks of death and dripping blood.

CHORUS: How so? ‘Tis but the odour of the altar sacrifice.

CASSANDRA: The stench is like a breath from the tomb.” (Adams, 15)

In this chapter, Fiver, a rabbit with a sixth sense for danger, has a vision of his burrow and the surrounding field covered in blood. The epigraph most definitely communicates the dramatic establishing of the setting and the story.

In conclusion, Richard Adam’s extensive uses of epigraphs in his novel Watership Down contribute greatly to the story as a whole. Not only do the epigraphs summarize key points in the novel, but they help a great deal in identifying the seriousness and strength of action to be taken, as well as add literary depth and credibility to the novel as a whole.

Bibliography:

Adams, Richard. Watership Down. London: Puffin Books, 1973.