meet sailor - my newest project

i have decided to revisit this whole blogging phenomenon. i really enjoyed coming and sitting down, tracking my thoughts, and letting myself get lost in, well, translation from mind to key pad. i think one of the most positive ways to do this is to simply follow the progress i am making with my newest project -- sailor.

sailor, or originally 'city' is by carson city out of daisy dukes. he is a well bred, well-started thoroughbred colt, off the track colt that came with minimul education. we adopted him through New Vocations Racehorse Adoption Program (http://horseadoption.com/). despite some conformation faults (check out that knee! ack!) and an old bow (that is completely healed and vet approved) he is turning out to be quite the project.

we've had him now since julyish...maybe...? my mom originally adopted him, going out on this whim to bring home something. (she's on a mission to save them all) and, in the middle of the afternoon, called to say "Lauryn, i've found you a horse"

yeah, like i need one. i'm in college, working at a bakery and already set up with the most perfect, steady-eddy paint gelding in the world. yet, somehow, she talked me in to it ;)

several hours later - sailor was home and refused to get off the trailer. long story short - our journey has been a pretty lazy one until now. i've trailered him up to my college and since late october have started the training. i'd like to have this blog outline my progress with him, show my challenges and successes and how we've grown along the way. if anything, its therapy - and amusement and something i'm excited about taking on. hopefully, i can just stay dedicated :)

anyway, here are some pics...and mind you - he looks thin. i moved him to a barn near my college and things, well, they didn't work out and he lost a bit of weight. he is currently at a new facility eating his way through my pay check. he is currently on grass all day, hay 2x a day and beet pulp + safe choice grain. i'll update pics tomorrow when i go to the new barn but these are some older ones.

they date back to...mmm...somewhere in mid/early october right after he was moved to his new barn.

like i said, more later, im tired and the only reason i'm up so late is because of the election. damnit, i am proud to be an american ;)

yes, we can

goodnight. for real.

this was for school and now its to reduce stress

obviously english 201 is over...thank goodness

so ive decided to use this blog to simply rant about college, guys, whatever might be getting under my skin for that specific moment. currently, im irked because i am all alone, bored, hungry and considering what that ice cream might do to my already chunky legs.

damn it! i give in - everyone can't withstand the delightful chant "i scream, you scream, we all scream for (damnit) ice cream!"

u g l y ... you ain't got no alliby ... you ugly ...

oh geeze - somebody do something about those eyebrows!

this movie bothered me...to no end. i liked the actress for jane as far as quality but, based on looks, i just couldn't stand it. for some unknown reason, this woman and her hideous eyebrows bothered me...incredibly.

but that is besides the point. overall, i was pleased with the movie and felt it did a rather good job of portraying the novel. there were a few instances, however, that i took note of.

helen -- hello! where were ya, girl? i thought it was interesting that the movie opted to leave helen out for the most part. she was mentioned, shown and created but...only for an instance. i thought that took away from the movie and, had i not read the book, i would never of taken note of her importance. oh! and miss temple...does the movie even mention her?

another big difference was rochester played the gypsy woman in the movie, but not the novel. and the ouji board (however you spell it) was never mentioned in the book, either.

i really thought that, through a four hour movie, everyone should be at least mentioned. while i do agree there were some differences, they were miniscule. i thought the casting was fantastic but that rochester was a bit too good looking and jane was...ugh. in my mind i had always pictured jane as attractive but plain, with soft features and a quiet manner about her. the woman in the movie had harsh, angry features that bothered me. even when she was smiling she appeared to be scowling and that just irked me. overall though, i would def. say 4 out of 5 stars for this movie.

heads up -- catch up

wow...spring weekend was F A N T A S T I C despite the fact that I spent all of sat. in a driving class. fortunately, however, it gave me a new push for this semester and I have several blogs in the 'draft' stage. No one worry...everything will be completed this week. Game on for all the necessary and soon-to-be-finished blogs

its crusoe, you know!

there seems to be such a negative light cast upon the famous robinson crusoe and yet, i'm starting to believe that it is done for a reason. throughout the class and online discussions, everyone appears to agree that rc is nothing but an unchangeable jerk. his desire for control, lack of enthusiam for anything (including his family, wife and her death *which he only mentioned in one sentence throughout the entire novel*) and total disregard for anyone or anything unless he needs them is amazing. i don't know how people could idolize him as a hero as he wasn't even a very succesful seaman. that, however, is beside the point.



“I turn’d to the boy who they called Xury, and said to him, Xury, if you will be faithful to me I’ll make you a great man, but if you will not stroke your face to be true to me, that is, swear by Mohomet and his father’s beard, I must throw you in to the sea too…”



poor xury...poor...poor xury. you have to feel bad for someone who becomes one of rc's total slaves. crusoe had no problem in drowning this young boy. much like the episode with the lion, life is of no true meaning to crusoe unless it is his own. throughout the entire novel, crusoe rarely takes heed of anything else that does not serve him. even God is put secondhand and called upon when needed,

“Lord look upon me, Lord pity me, Lord have mercy upon me…”

sick and on his deathbed, crusoe looks to the lord for help. i believe crusoe felt so out of control that he sought a greater power to assist him. i noted that, throughout the novel, crusoe rarely lost any control of anything and when he did...he needed the lord. he called upon him when he needed something but not to say 'hey, thanks' or anything else to that matter.

“O drug!” said I aloud, “what art thou good for? Thou art not worth to me, no, not the taking off of the ground; one of those knives is worth all this heap; I have no manner of use for thee; e’en remain where thou art and go to the bottom as a creature whose life is not worth saving.” However, upon second thoughts, I took it away. . . ."

although slightly amusing, this quote shows one of rc's great struggles - money. the drug, or gold, as he is exclaiming is nothing but a social ladder and yet, in his state, it matters nothing to him. yet, just as quickly as rc decides it is worthless, he immediately jumps at it again to store it away. money, wealth and power are three very important aspects of rc. his voyages, slaveships, and overall life is a mission to make money.

"I consulted neither Father or Mother any more, nor so much as sent them Word of it; but leaving them to hear of it as they might, without asking God's Blessing, or my Father's..."

his father offered him the world if he would stay and yet, rc took off...without even saying goodbye. his family was of no value, nor was his wife. nothing mattered to rc but himself and that truly bothered me. although he became attached to his goat and friday, rc never put anything but himself on top.

"My island was now peopled, and I thought myself very rich in subjects; and it was a merry reflection, which I frequently made, how like a king I looked. First of all, the whole country was my own mere property, Baso that I had an undoubted right of dominion. Secondly, my people were perfectly subjected. I was absolute lord and lawgiver, they all owed their lives to me, and were ready to lay down their lives, if there had been occasion of it, for me."

so here is this man, on an island, experiencing a major ego-trip. what a ride it must have been for good ole rc! to stumble on to this island and declare it his own! "...how like a king I looked," said rc....right. i don't know how much i should elaborate on this quote as it is pretty much self-explanatory. rc thought these natives loved him, he loved his kingdom and all was well. again, the references to rc's power-trips and love for control are oozing in this quote.

"...I shar'd the Island into Parts with 'em, reserv'd to myself the Property of the Whole, but gave them such Parts respectively as they agreed on..."

this island serves as a great foundation for who rc was as a whole. this object became one of great value to rc as he were a great king and it was his kingdom. even after he left and there were new inhabitants he still depicts himself as king. after all that he went through on that island, you would think he would want others to skip it and yet, he forces others to stay. way to go...jerk

"O, master"

Priceless. Definitely one of my favorite things to pull for this blog. I wish I could train people to say this and yet, I would become just like this man. rc teaches friday to call him by the name of 'master' before teaching him anything else. although rc does show affection and favoritism towards friday, their relationship was definitely slave owner and slave.

"loaded my gun again, and by and by I saw a great fowl like a hawk sit upon a tree within shot; so to let Friday understand a little what I would do, I call’d him to me again, pointed at the fowl which was indeed a parrot, and to my gun, and to the ground under the parrot, to let him see I would make it fall, I made him understand that I would shoot and kill that bird…”

whether it is the lion, the cats, the bear or the birds...nothing is safe. the last line of this quote is most appalling to me. i could never, under any circumstances other than life or death, kill another being. maybe it is just me, or the time period in which i live, but i see 'animal cruelty' written all over this. i felt this quote was about rc showing friday he was almighty and powerful. he is training friday to take the lives of things that, to rc, do not matter.

again, what a jerk.

through these quotes and a general understanding of the novel, i feel pretty confident in defending my original thesis...rc does not change. although he might make momentary adjustments to suit the situation, he is nothing but an egotistical jerk. his head is incredibly high in the air and there is nothing equal to him. sometimes i even wonder if rc thinks he is equal to god. if anything, rc definitely believes he is royalty.

aye matey! shipwrecks and survivals of 17th and 18th centuries

shipwrecks - survivals

the sunken ships and lost souls of the 17th and 18th centuries



there are so many ships that could be described and explored but i found two that were truly fascinating to me. they are:

the vasa
whydah

the royal ship: the vasa

in the 1620's -- Sweden's naval forces were in the process of modernization. by building a greater number of heavily armed warships, sweden become more efficient and slightly more aggressive. their warships, were used for troop transportation, blockage operations as well as to win and protect baltic ports.

the vasa, much like her sister-ships, was heavily armed and was able to destroy enemy ships with ease. in 1625 - the crown signed a contract to build four warships -- two larger and two smaller. the vasa, who was one of the larger ships, was produced alongside the Tre Kronor (Three Crowns). The Vasa was named after the ruling Vasa dynasty. actually, she was named after the heraldic emblem of the Vasa dynasty. the emblem was of a sheath of corn.


along with her sister ship, she belonged to a category called Royal Ship (in swedish: Regalskepp). She was one of the largest ships in the navy. the vasa was built from oka and approximately 1,000 okas were used to build the ship. she was actually launched the minute she could float -- without having been completely finished. although amusing, it made sense as she would have been very difficult to launch as such a large boat later on.



the captain of the vasa was Söfring Hansson and he was accompanied by two sub-lieutenants. there were a large number of lesser officers, two mates and two bombardier as well as two skippers. there were about 90 sailors and 20 special officers as well as one cook.

the capsizing of the vasa:

in august 1628 - the vasa went to take her maiden voyage. she set sail from the royal castle around 3 pm heading eastward toward the archipelago of stochholm. she fired a "swedish charge", which is a two-gun salute as they lost sight of the docking area. but then a gust of wind from the south caused her to heel and the wind began to increase as they sailed along. all of a sudden, large gusts of wind supposedly made her heel alarmingly to port and water began to pour through the lower gunports. despite the efforts of the crew to save her, the vasa sank in desperation to a depth of 30 meters.

the was clear back then and, if someone sailed by, you could actually catch a glimpse of the vasa as the lay on the seabed. she sank just off the island of becholmen. fortunately, the vasa carried a crew of 200 and only 50 of them drowned. but, because of the disaster, everyone considered it a bad omen for their nation.

it was not until 1961 that the vasa was drawn up from her watery grave. thousands of interesting tid bits were found inside and around the magnificent ship. in 1990, the reconstruction and preservation work were completed and the vasa was given a home the vasa museum on the island of Djurgården. today, the vasa is the most well-preserved 17th century ship in the world.

a complete story of The Vasa can be found here:

http://hem.bredband.net/johava/WASA2e.htm#flottan

the whydah

alright...this one was probably my favorite! i just thought it was such an interesting story and...well...i love pirates ;)

argh matey! the whydah was the flagship of the pirate "Black Sam" Bellamy. the ship sailed for only a year as a pirate ship until a horrific storm off the coast of Massachusetts sank the vessel. yet, before being transformed in to a glorious pirate ship, it had sailed two voyages as a merchant galley through the rouse of the triangular trade. its past was in transporting english goods to africa, slaves from africa to the new world and then back to england.

she was america's only known pirate ship and, in april 1717, her captain and 143 others died with her. truly, the whydah is more than just a shipwrecked tragedy - it is a love story with a rag-to-riches twist that turned horribly wrong.

the captain - sam bellamy was in love with a maria hallet of eastham, massachusetts. her parents, who did approve and like sam, were nervous of his income and felt that a poor sailor could not provide for their daughter. in response to this, bellamy and several friends took off looking for fortune and a future.

along with his friend palgrave williams, bellamy started out as a ordinary treasure hunter -- looking for shipwreckes. unfortunately, there was no luck in that business. but, instead of returning home with nothing, the determined lover became a pirate. in just a year of raiding, bellamy and his crew plundered more than 50 ships on the caribbean and atlantic. they were considered 'robin hood's men' and were remarkably democratic aboard the ship.

then came the whydah. in feb. of 1717, bellamy captured the beautiful three-masted english slave ship. with her came gold and silver worth more than 20,000 pounds sterling. for these men, who might have earned two pounds a month, this was the jackpot.

bellamy, being modest, decided that this was enough and turned the ship around. yet, as they turned for home (and maria) - tragedy struck on april 26, 1717. a fierce storm sank the ship, the captain and all but 2 of the 145 crew.

the story of the whydah:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/explorer/whydah/more.html

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/whydah/main.html

the lady of death

Her lips were red, her looks were free,

Her locks were yellow as gold:

Her skin was as white as leprosy,
The Night-mare LIFE-IN-DEATH was she,
Who thicks man's blood with cold.

A True Night-Mare

Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834)
The Rime of the Ancient Mariner (text of 1834)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I brought this point up on the discussion board the other day because I found it to be incredibly interesting. In Coleridge's poem, I was intrigued by the fact that death was represented by a woman. I was trying to think of any other plays or any peices of literature in which death was in the form of a female. Truly, I could not think of any.

I have always considered death as a more masculine figure. Consider the devil, who is male, and also the grim-reaper who has a masculine connotation. I desperately tried racking my brain, and despite everything I could think of, I have no recollection of a woman ever being death. I thought it was unique that Coleridge used a female to be the symbol of death.

But what does that mean? Is it simply coincidence or did Coleridge do this on purpose?

Once I went back and read the poem again, I picked up on several themes. I realized there was a need for redemption and appreciation of God's creatures. Through all of it, I could not find any reason for death to be a woman. Maybe Coleridge had a sexist view point of women? Or, maybe, to battle God (who is thought of as male) one would need a woman to oppose him (much like Eve).

I do remember, however, that in ancient mythology women were often associated with evil, power, and manipulation. Consider Medusa, or other such lady monsters that plagued the sea and created nightmares for sailors for centuries. (http://www.paleothea.com/LadyMonsters.html)

Also, I remember in the Pirates of the Carribbean, that the dress aboard the ship was considered bad luck. For some sailors, women were the ultimate curse when they were on board. This website (http://pacificoffshorerigging.com/nautical_superstitions.htm) points out several nautical supersitions and one of them is women being on board: they make the sea angry. Yet, naked women on board -- all good. Also, it taps in to the killing of an albatross and a gull - which contain the souls of sailors lost at sea.

Look at the sirens and the myth that women on board attracted sea monsters, dangerous seas and death. Maybe Coleridge took these historical ideas in to place when he wrote the poem.

Or...he could have just been sexists.

I just find it so interesting as to how history applies roles to women. In some myths, they are symbols of fertililty, forgiveness and creation and yet in others -- they are wicked, sex-driven, manipulators. I believe Coleridge swayed towards being a bit more sexist and also a bit supersitious.

oh! more othello!

Tradegy of

Othello

the moor of venice

"O, beware my lord, of jealousy!

It is the green-eyed monster..."

[iago--3.3.195-96]

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Prior to my paper I was dreading this blog. I really could not think of anything that was an important aspect of Othello until I truly made myself think about it. And then it hit me...duh! Jealousy! I felt that was a huge part of this play as it was what propelled it and created the twisted and unthinkable plot. It was the green-eyed monster that created catastrophe and ripped away the lives and reputations of the honest and good. Othello fell victim to its poison, Roderigo played the fool because of it and Iago behaved the way he did all because of one disgusting element; jealousy. It was the unifying theme that brought down a strong leader, destroyed a relationship and allowed the wicked to get the last word and laugh.

I decided to analyze the relationships and how jealousy played off of each of them.

Consider: Roderigo and Othello, Cassio and Othello and lastly of Iago and Cassio

“It is silliness to live, when to live is to torment, // and then have we a prescription to die when death is // our physician,” (I, iii, 350-52).

Poor Roderigo...he never saw it coming. This quote is not only depressing but it is also foreshadowing the events to come. It was tough to read about how much this silly young man adored this woman and saw nothing else but death if he could not have her. Maybe he would have been the better man for her and yet, I am sure Iago would have recognized how weak he was and would have eaten him alive.

Roderigo was consumed, however, by the green eyed monster. He could not think of anything else but how much he wanted Desdemona. Roderigo continued to fuel Iago's plan by supplementing him with jewels and money and yet, got nothing in return. "With naught but truth. I have wasted my // self out of my means. The jewels you have had // from me to deliver [to] Desdemona would half have // corrupted a votaress. You have told me she hath // recieved them, and returned me expectations and // comforts of sudden respect and acquaintance, but I // find none," (IV, ii, 216-222). It is so sad to see Roderigo broken like this, desperately trying to buy his love from Desdemona. He is willing to give everything he has and also attempt to murder in search for love.

That is where jealousy finds its foundation for corruption. For Roderigo, he is willing to follow Iago to get to the one thing he wants: Desdemona. It appears that the green eyed monster has devoured Roderigo's sense of morality. Much like Iago, Roderigo will stop at nothing to get at Othello. He is definitely Iago's puppet and because of jealousy towards Othello and his desire for Desdemona, he follows Iago's every command.

It is a shame as to what jealousy can do to a man, or woman for that matter. Yet, in "Othello", it was men that were being attacked. In today's society, you hear on the radio, television and even read in the magazines about crazy ex girlfriends. Yet, Othello was the INSANE jealous husband.

"Ay, let her rot and perish and be damned // tonight, for she shall not live. No, my heart is turned // to stone. I strike it, and it hurts my hand. O, the world hath not a sweeter creature! She might lie by an emperor's side and command him tasks." (IV, i, 200-204).

Ouch. Ouch. Ouch. There was definitely a sting to that one. I believe it was at this point that Othello truly snapped. No longer was Desdemona the woman of his dreams, she was a nightmare that represented hate and infidelity. In his mind, there was nothing else to do but kill her. "Get me some poison, Iago, this night. I'll not // expostulate with her lest her body and beauty // unprovide my mind again. This night, Iago." (IV, i, 223-225).

Yet where does all of this anger come from? Othello's rage stems from his jealousy towards Cassio. Had it not been for Iago planting the seed, I am sure Othello would never had turned on his good friend. It is a shame what jealousy can do to a friendship and how it can annihilate any ounce of trust someone originally had. For Othello, his friendship was ruined. He became jealous of Cassio without any true facts. He never questioned Iago and quickly fell in to his trap. The green eyed monster had its way with Othello and devoured his heart in one gulp.

The story would never have occured had it not been for Iago's jealousy towards Cassio. This is where it all begins...when Iago loses control and becomes dedicated to ruining those around him. "Despise me // If I do not. Three great ones of the city, // In personal suit to make me his lieutenant, // Off-capped to him; and, by the faith of man, // I know my price, I am worth no worse a place." (I, i, 8-12).

This whole story would have been nothing had it not been for Iago. I was really disgusted by his personality and how corrupt he was. Yet, Iago is jealous not just of Cassio but also of Othello. The secret assumption that Othello has slept with Emilia drives his rage even further. " I hate the Moor, // And it is thought abroad that 'twixt my sheets // 'Has done my office. I know if 't be true, // But I, for mere supicion in that kind, // Will do as if for surety. He holds me well. The better shall my purpose work on him // Cassio's a proper man. Let me see now: To get his place and to plume up my will // In double knavery -- How? how? -- Let's see," (I, iii, 429-437) From that passage on, Iago begins his raid on those around him. Had it not been for jealousy, he would probably never have snapped.

"...one that loved not wisely, but too well," (V, ii, 404).

Yet, the emotion was too strong to overcome and the weakest man led to the destruction of the strongest general. Iago definitely exploited Othello, his reputation and his dignity as he drove the man to the verge of murder and suicide. It was not Iago as he was simply the conductor for the current of jealousy. It was the emotion that erupted from Iago, Othello and Roderigo that caused each of their downfalls. The green-eyed monster was originally Iago’s puppet until it eventually ran rampant and consumed all of those around. No one, not even a great soldier, can be spared the wrath of jealousy. It is an undeniable fact of reality and as long as it exists, it will continue to blind those who fall beneath its power – regardless of race, gender and even time period. There is simply no stopping envy.

the movie vs. the play

that movie was...h o r r i f y i n g

i have to give the movie credit -- i felt it was very closely tied to othello's original plot. it managed to mix modern twists in to a play that had been written thousands of years ago. it is unbelievable that Shakespeare's writing is so timeless and can be adapted for any generation. honestly, though, i didn't think that the play was nearly as horrific as the movie.

maybe it was because the movie was visual and i was able to watch and study the characters. the play had great character development but it was much easier for me to get sucked in to the movie than it was the book. towards the end of the movie i caught myself with my jaw wide open and could not believe the plot was unfolding before me...and yet...i had already read the play...twice!

but...i felt that the movie played with the play's plot a little bit and tweeked it to fit modern society. i also thought that the continuous 'bird scenes' were a bit unneccessary and, even though it was symbolic, i got tired of it. i did like how the movie gave all of the characters similair names and their roles were easy to figure out.

my biggest problem with the movie was poor roger! i felt soooo bad for the kid. i felt the movie focused a lot of his weaknesses and drifted away from the fact that he was doing this for desdemona. it seemed to me that, in the movie, roger was more than just a tool for hugo but also a very important character. in the play, roderigo drifted in and out as needed by shakespeare. but, in the movie, he was more prevavalent and almost had more of a reason to kill for just desdemona -- it was to regain his reputation and his dignity. i hate to watch people pick on other people...and watching the basketball game scene was a bit upsetting. i felt bad for him, especially when he panicked and hugo ended up killing roger and michael. (i know in the play that roderigo died and cassio lived but in the movie...it definitely hinted that michael didn't make it).

overall, i thought the movie was pretty fantastic. it was pretty gruesome for me though. i was not expecting to be so surprised by the movie. i thought they did a great job in representing it and adapting it to current society. i thought the twist of drugs and oden's past was an interesting aspect. i really don't think it took anything away from the original version at all.

so if i were a movie critic i would say: A

do i really want to know more about More?

Thomas More

His Life, Works and More...

Thomas More was born in London to Sir John More on February 7, 1478. He was educated at St. .Anthony's School in London and later furthered his education by attending Oxford under Thomas Linacre and William Grocyn. During this period, More was writing countless comedies and also studied Greek and Lat

in literature.

But More wanted more and around 1494 More returned to London to study law and was admitted to Lincoln's Inn in 1496. The Inn is one of the oldest of the four Inns of court. It contains formal records that go back continuously to 1422. While at Lincoln's Inn, More decided to become a monk and subjected himself to the discipline of the Carthusians. For More, he lived the life of a month and the Catholic Encyclopedia describes it as "The Carthusian life is essentially solitary and contemplative with a certain admixture of the cenobitic element (see I). A very large part of the day is devoted to saying the three Offices (i.e. that of the day, the Office of Our Lady, which is called de Beata, and the Office of the Dead), while much time is given to mental prayer. The rest is divided between manual labour, study, and a little recreation."

Yet, once again More makes a decision to change positions. In 1504, he entered Parliament and married for the first time somewhere between 1504 and 1505.

One of More's first acts in Parliament was to urge a decrease in a proposed appropriation for the King Henry VII. The King retaliated by imprisoning More's father and did not release him until a fine was paid and More withdrew from public life. But after the death of the King in 1509, More came out of hibernation.

The next king, Henry VIII, favored More. In 1515, More accompanied a delegation to Flanders to help with disputes about the wool trade. This is when Utopia comes to play and More actually uses the trip as a reference. Also, More helped in suppressing an uprising against foreigners and was portrayed in the play Sir Thomas More, which is rumored to have been done by Shakespeare. More also accompanied the King and court and in 1518 he became a member of the Privy Council. He was knighted in 1521.

In 1523 - he was made Speaker of the House of Commons and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in 1525. Then, after Thomas Wolsey fell in 1529, More became the Lord Chancellor and was the first layman yet to hold the post.

It was in 1523 though that More resigned. Although reasons are not clear, it is said to be either linked to ill health or More's disapproval of King Henry's behavior. In April, 1534, More refused to swear to the Act of Succession and the Oath of Supremacy and was sent to the Tower of London on April 17th. He was then found guilty of treason and was beheaded alongside Bishop Fisher on July 6, 1535. More's final words were: "The King's good servant, but God's First."

--- works of thomas more ---

CW1. English Poems. Life of Pico. Last Things.
CW2. Richard III (also paperback).
CW3. I. Lucian Translations. II. Latin Poems.
CW4. Utopia (also paperback).
CW5. Responsio ad Lutherum.
CW6. Dialogue Concerning Heresies.
CW7. Letter to Bugenhagen, Supplications of Souls, Letter against Frith.
C8. Confutation of Tyndale's Answer.
C9. Apology of Sir Thomas More.
C10. Debellation of Salem and Bizance.
C11. Answer to a Poisoned Book.
C12. Dialogue of Comfort (also paperback).
CW13. Treatise upon the Passion, Treatise on the Blessed Body, Intructions and Prayers.
CW14. De Tristitia Christi (also paperback).

--- utopia ---

Utopia can be described as a critical examination of contemporary English institutions and customs. More was inspired by his close friend Erasmus and by ancient thinkers Plato and Aristole. He applied humanists philosophies and created his own utopian society. Literature Network described Utopia beautifully: "Utopia is a classic masterpiece that conveys More's vivid imagination of the Island of Utopia. Although most of the characters are fictional, it is intriguing to learn about the true values of European societies during the 16th century, when More actually wrote the book (although many scholars believe that the exact year was 1515). Truthfully, the book is quite easy to understand. All More tries to do is convey his own views of how society should be through Raphael. Moreover, the use of imagery in Book I is quite fascinating, including the constant references to Roman and Greek myths and beliefs."

... More's Utopia ...

---------------------------------------------------------------------

... m y -- u t o p i a ...

---------------------------------------------------------------------

websites:

1. http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/tmore.htm

This website had a majority of the information that I used. I read this one thoroughly first and used it for my reference source. All of the info was very clear and easy to read -- it never made it tedious. I definitely used this one the most as it gave other sites to check out plus essays, articles, etc. Overall - very helpful.

2. http://www.online-law.co.uk/bar/lincolns/index.html

This had the information about Lincoln's Inn. I didn't want to just write it without knowing what it was so I checked it out here. This was the website link given on the page to check out so I simply followed the hyperlink.

3. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03388a.htm

I got the information about the Carthusian Order from this website. I really didn't know anything about it but I ended up reading a lot from this page. It made a lot of sense, especially when applied to More's life and opinions.

4. http://www.online-literature.com/more/utopia/

I even quoted this one! I thought the information on here was clear and concise. Sometimes reading about history and things like this can really drag on but I appreciated how breif it was. It made getting through it much easier and I was able to use a great quote about Utopia.

5. http://www.bookrags.com/notes/uto/

Just like Sparknotes but with more outlets. I was able to follow more links and read alot more about Thomas More and Utopia. It had links to common themes, chapter I and II summaries and unlocked alot of the topics that I previously wasn't that clear on.

6. http://www.apostles.com/works.html

This is the website were I was able to pull the complete collection of works. Although it didn't have any information on it, I thought it would be great to use. I liked being able to look at all the differents peices of literature that More had produced.

7. http://www.online-literature.com/more/

Same site -- different information. This one was all about More, his life and his works. It was a lot like the first website and I was able to bounce different facts off of either website.

8. http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/Utopia-Utopian-Literature-About-the-Author-Other-Works-of-Thomas-More.id-157,pageNum-3.html

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/Utopia-Utopian-Literature-About-the-Author-Other-Works-of-Thomas-More.id-157,pageNum-3.html

Can you blame me? It had SO much information and I really couldn't help myself. At least it isn't wikepedia! I know the information is accurate but I always feel like using Cliffnotes/Sparknotes is the 'easy-way-out' for not reading the book but thankfully, I did so...I don't feel bad. I was able to use this website as a reference and it had a lot of info about Thomas More's other works.

wife of bath...what kind of woman was she?

Wife of Bath
what would she really have been?
what side of the spectrum would she have been on?



aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

I feel like I am extremely behind in this class because my blog for the WoB is just now being completed. Maybe I'm the bad person for procrastinating as much as I did on this particular blog but...before I begin wasting time again...these are my thoughts of the WoB. I must ignore the beckoning Myspace and Facebook and actually be productive.
--- aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ---

Geoffrey Chaucer's Wife of Bath is an elaborate tale of an independent, determined and potentially disagreeable woman. The main character, the Wife of Bath, is undoubtedly a fiesty creation that resembles women of our current society. She is ferocious in her look for love, confindent in her ability to manipulate every man she attracts andseemingly fearless. Yet, when attempting to break through her tough exterior, Chaucer is vague in describing her true person. The reader is left to interpret her harshness, her lustfulness, as well as her overall character as they please. Fortunately, I was amused by the Wife of Bath. Although I do believe she was somewhat immoral, she was definitely that deserved a little bit of recognition, if not respect. I appreciate the WoB's spirit, her determination and lastly her sense of self.


If there was a scale based on morality of character, the WoB might score somewhere around where our modern day Paris Hilton might end up. Unfortunately, is appears that women with these certain personality traits become timeless parts of every society. Much like Miss Hilton, the WoB was a wealthy woman who was fortunate enough to know the tricks of the trade. The WoB was very capable of getting everything her way and often prided herself on it. In her prologue she states, "And whan that I have toold thee forth my tale // Of tribulaciun in marriage, // Of which I am expert in all mine age -- // This is to saye, myself have been the whippe --" (lines 172-175).

But, is this a negative quality? Women in our current society must mock the attributes of a succesful man. Generally speaking, it requires a woman to be more assertive as well as demanding. Although the glass is slowly beginning to crack, the ceiling still does exist. I believe that if the WoB would have existed in our current day and age she would have been one step closer to becoming a money mogul much like Oprah but with an edgy, Madonna, Hilton and Donald Trump edge. For this, I like the WoB's fiestyness as well as her openess in admitting to her flaws. She is obviously confident and, for that reason, I like her just a little bit more.

The WoB was definitely more than just full of, well, piss and vinegar. (I know that term is somewhat...vulgar...but I felt it described her quite well). She was confident in herself both physically and mentally. She was well educated and was obviously interested in exploring (hence the reason for the pilgramige and others). She had probably been trained the way of a lady and, throughout all of her marriages, was more than accustomed to the life of a wealthy woman. Her confidence was maybe the most amusing aspect of the WoB. I believe it was this particular quality that allowed me to overlook her other habits. I tend to regard characters highly when they themselves do the same. Confidence is contagious and, with literature, a reader can somewhat morph in to character and draw out the qualities they appreciate the most.
I believe that the WoB deserves respect because of her willingness to bear her soul. She is confident inthe Prologue to her tale and she was definitely the dominating factor. She refused to allow interruptions and occasionally was a bit brazen in her manner. In admitting to her weaknesses and telling of her past marriages, she hits on one theme that, according to Bruce Magee's notes on the Wife of Bath (http://www2.latech.edu/~bmagee/201/chaucer/wife_notes.htm), deems her as being "bad". Magee's notes read, "The WOB [is] considered bad because she follows desire." Although true, I don't think that because she is a 'go-getter' type of girl she is automatically bad. But, I understand that Magee's approach was from society then and not now. Had her story and her attitudes been adapted to current society, the fact she follows her desires would be something no one would notice because almost everyone does it.

The WoB, much like the roses named for her, are a tenacious breed notorious for their beauty and their thorns. She was very much aware of the person she was and the type of rebel she was for her time. Chaucer allowed her to indulge herself as well as amuse herself when describing who she was the other pilgrams. In her prologue she says, "As help me God, I was a lusty oon, // And faire and riche and yong and well bigon. // And trewely, as my housbondes tolde me, // I hadde the beste quoniam mighte be," (lines 605-608). The WoB is very concious of her good looks and flaunts them. She has had many years of playing the role of a foxy vixen and I don't think she ever wants to give that up, regardless of age or maritial status. I would never say I look to her for inspiration but I do admire how she accepts herself completely, even if it is a bit arrogant. Regardless, she is definitely a strong woman and that is something to give credit to.
Overall, I believe the WoB lacks a few morals but makes up for them in confidence and honesty. She is open minded and willing to accept the criticism of others for the person she is. She is happy with what she has become and has struggling through several unsuccesful marriages. After being married at 12, I would have to say she is definitely a survivor. Chaucer's WoB is an amusing and interesting character -- especially because she is so foreign to the time period in which she was set. What makes this ironic is that, unbeknownst to Chaucer, the WoB is a timeless figure that represents alot of the women of today. Is she good? I believe so yes. She sins, but accepts it and appears to be optimistic. She has not committed any crimes and, in my book, I would say that the WoB deserves a bit of what she gets but...for what she is and what she stands for...she is still a good woman.

--------------------------

websites:

1. http://www2.latech.edu/~bmagee/201/chaucer/wife_notes.htm

An outline of Geoffrey Chaucer, the time period and offers insight in to relationships and relates it back to the Wife of Bath. It was very interesting and provided for a very good quote.

2. http://www.universalteacher.org.uk/poetry/wifebath.htm

I believe this was one of the websites that was given as a good reference in the class. It had a lot of different links that I was able to branch off on. I am surprised as to how much time I spent on here. I really like this link though because of everything it had on there -- no wonder it was a reference!

3. http://www.luminarium.org/medlit/wife.htm

Much like the last one, this had many links to go and look at. I think I actually found the first one off of this particular 'mother' site. It had pictures, and sooo much information I did not know what to do with myself.

------- heads up -------

again - i redid this one. i never changed the text just added the websites and went over the format.

chaucer and his middle aged women...

"Truth is the highest thing that man may keep."

Canterbury Tales. The Frankeleines Tale. Line 11789


Chaucer is considered one of literature's most influential and oustanding figures. In a time way before Shakeaspeare, Chaucer was "the first finder of our language" (Encyclopedia Britannica Online, "Geoffrey Chaucer). Born somewhere between 1342 and 1343, Chaucer first appears in the records around 1357. Working in the household of Elizabeth, the countess of Ulster, he was able to work in a royal household and gain experience in royal and court like settings.

From there Chaucer dabbled in war and various civil duties. He was a diplomat, a justice of the peace, a customs officer, and a forester. Over the course of his life, Chaucer was noted for going through three stages in his writing career. The first stage, which is simply called the early stage, was defined by his work based on French models. One of his finest examples was The Book of the Duchess and Roman de la Rose. All of the work were written prior to 1370.

Chaucer progressed in to his Italian phase where his work was modelled after Dante and Boccaccio. Some of his work during this period include the unfinished Legend of Good Women. This particular poem tells of nine heroines, which introduced the heroic couplet. Other works, such as The Treatise on the Astrolabe and Toilus and Criseyde are also written during this time. In Troilus and Criseyde, Chaucer perfects the use of seven-line stanza later named rhyme royal.
In his final and most famous stage, Chaucer creates the timeless Canterbury Tales. It is said that, Chaucer "achieved his fullest artistic power" (The Columbia Encyclopedia, Geoffrey Chaucer). Although unfinished, the Canterbury Tales "include a variety of medieval genres from the humorous fabliau to the serious homily, and they vividly indicate medieval attitudes and customs in such areas as love, marriage, and religion," (The Columbia Encyclopedia, Geoffrey Chaucer). With the use of his humor and enchanting language, each seperate tale combines to create an image of what life might have been.

Although The Canterbury Tales are not accurate for historical purposes, they do give insight to the trends of the medieval period. "In his Canterbury Tales, Geoffrey Chaucer portrays women in a much more positive way, characterizing them as somewhat empowered. Actual historical events, such as the scandal and subsequent litigation revolving around Anna Buschler which Steven Ozment details in The Burgermeister's Daughter, suggest something of a compromise between these two literary extremes. While it is true that life was no utopia for medieval women, neither was life universally horrible or society thoroughly misogynistic," (Garrett Moritz, "Notions of Gender in the Middle Ages: Myth vs. Reality")

While the treatment of women depended on their socio-economic status, equality rarely existed and could never be bought. The women during the medieval period were the property of their men. At the age of 12 girls could be married off, much like the Wife of Bath. Women were under the control of their father until married where she became completely obedient to her husband. Upper class women were not only property but also items of sale. While the lower classes had more freedom in marriage, the women of the higher classes were used to unite families or somehow enrich a country or bank account.

Women were expected to bear children and run the household. It was their duty until the day they died, which on average, was about forty years. Many women took on working roles that depended on their education and class. There were women who wrote, drew or painted and created lasting art. There were even women such as Joan of Arc who became a heroic mascot for women and universities alike.

Through each struggle and success, the women of the Middle Ages are usually thought of from a romantic mindset. Not every girl was a princess, a queen or lady in waiting. From the feilds to the thrones, the women lived lifestyles that are inconvievable now. Fortunately, they left legacies that will continue to inspire and educate the generation of today.





---------------------------
websites:

1. http://www.britannica.com/
Britannica Encyclopedia Online: This website was very helpful as it gave several topics in which to research. I was able to learn about the Canterbury area, Geoffrey Chaucer's later years and the different tales. I really enjoyed picking through this website the most and will definitely use it more often.

2. http://www.bartleby.com/65/ch/Chaucer.html
Again, another encyclopedia -- the Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-07. Much like the Britannica, it offered a lot of easy to understand information. It also covered several important aspects of the Cantebury tales including history on Chaucer and his different works. This is the first time I had heard of his three writing stages which I decided to use in my blog. It was very interesting and I thought the information was very useable.

3. Garrett Moritz, "Notions of Gender in the Middle Ages: Myth vs. Reality"
http://www.gtexts.com/college/papers/s3.html
This was one of my favorites! It was a college paper and when I went and researched the writer, I found Garret Moritz to be a Harvard student (pretty impressive...) . This website also had a lot of information but offered a different perspective. He also incorporated Chaucer in to his discussion and that pretty much convinced me to use this as a source.

-------------

As a side note:

I had originally posted this back in Jan. but I decided to re do it. I did not change the text, I simply added websites and tried to get the format to work.