Why does war remain...

...the so-called profession of kings? Why does war seem to be necessary for "glory?" What kind of glory is that? I am referring to the discussion I brought up in Cultural History on Friday... I cannot get past that whole "seeking glory through the agency of military conquest." Wouldn't a king be taking a huge gamble by embarking in warfare? I guess "glory" would only be achieved in the case of whopping success. Does that mean shame for failure in military pursuits? That just doesn't seem to make much sense to me, I suppose.

Anne Bradstreet

Well, I have to agree with the other girls in the class in saying that Anne Bradstreet was a great read. I loved exploring her life and learning not only about her experience (as a young woman, a colonist, an Elizabethan, a poet, the first American poet, etc.) but also a bit about Puritanism ideology and beliefs. I studied American History my junior year of high school, but we barely touched upon Puritanism, so I thought the book made a great examination of it.

However, you have to take a look at this article I found. It discusses a recent study that found that New England has surpassed the West Coast as the least religious region in America. It even mentions such "obvious suspects" as the "pedophilia scandal in the Catholic Church." It's a super interesting article, especially given everything we just read about the God-fearing religious fervor of the Puritans and the fact that they came to America to pursue their Utopia.

I was discussing this with some of the other girls, and we were thinking a lot about why exactly the Puritans came to the New World in the first place. Rather than promoting the idea of religious freedom, I feel like they came here to form that utopian society where they (as the dissenters) could flourish in their own Puritan mindset. There was no religious freedom here, as evidenced by the fear they had of other religious ideas, but rather they wanted to be exclusive in who they would accept into their community. I guess the end of the article put it best when it said that "religions are like denominations... They tend to shift." Have a look at it and tell me what you think!

"We have more curiosity than understanding. We grasp at everything, but catch nothing except wind."

Michel de Montaigne himself.

Love that quote! Seems especially fitting at times for the things we discuss in HUST (or perhaps me in Physics class). It comes from the very top of page 106 in the reading from Montaigne, "On Friendship" and "On Cannibalism" (2 hilariously different topics, in my opinion). It makes me wonder how much we really know for sure. I don't know, I don't really have a definitive response to this quote, but I thought I would bring it to your attention in case you hadn't already noticed it. It's kind of like the way he opens it, by stating that he wants to appear simple and natural, and that it is himself that he is going to portray. I like that: he is writing about what he knows best.

I enjoyed the Friendship reading too, but thought it a bit eerie the level of emotional investment this guy had in his friendships. I could see being extremely devoted to a lover or something like that, but on page 97 he discusses "some inexplicable power of destiny that brought about our union. We were looking for each other before we met..." That sounds awesome, but I'm not sure how much I believe in that. Don't get me wrong, friendships are great! No one likes friendships more than me! I am lacking in comments so if you see this and comment on it I'll send you my life story in a minute or less. But the friends I have, I met by chance - I doubt I would have my HUSTies if I never became a major, for example. I wonder why Montaigne seemed to be so invested in his friendships.

One final thing I thought I would bring up here is the matter of what Montaigne has to say about women, as seen in both the Friendship and Cannibalism books. In the former, he doubts that females have the capacities to undertake the relationships he talks about having with his friends. He states that "their souls do not seem firm enough to bear the strain of so hard and lasting a tie." Why? I disagree. On the other hand, in the Cannibalism book, he says of women that "some of their women employ themselves in the meantime with the warming of their drink, which is their principal duty." Why is that the women's principal duty? Did you notice any other comments about women in this article too?

King Lear

I wish Hooper and Brigette could have joined us for the presentation of King Lear from AFTLS! The actors' talent was very impressive, especially given that there were only 5 actors for far more than 5 roles in the play. It was a very well done job, and I loved how "into it" the actors were (especially the blonde guy). Although I can see it required a lot of talent to play dual roles, it made it somewhat confusing and a bit harder to follow, and I had never read King Lear before, either. There also were not that many props (or they were not real - i.e., a stick for a sword), no elaborate costume changes (such as a simple scarf or hat for a different character) and no outrageous scenery. At first I thought that those things would really take away from the play, or at least make it harder to get in to and imagine it. But, by the time the play was over, I realized that I didn't really miss those additions, because they are not always necessary to make a drama production really good. The talent of the actors was what shone through the most, not the props they carried or a special backdrop.

All in all, a well-done show. Can't wait for Navy Pier in October! And props (ha?) to the HUST department for reimbursing the ticket cost. Much appreciated.

Thinking about Cultural Geography

A shot of the ginormous Bodhisattva in the Yungang Grottoes - Bodhisattva means "enlightened being,"

so I thought it was appropriate for here, and for this class overall.

Click on it for a much larger view!

My topic for tomorrow's mini-presentation is from the "Cultural Geography" chapter in the Othello book. What a great edition - it comes with so many resources and helpful additions to the text that really helped enhance my understanding of the play itself, even from the one chapter I read.

Speaking of my chapter, I enjoyed thinking about new aspects of geography that I hadn't really considered previously. Although I will detail more in class (I have not organized all my ideas as this time yet), I wanted to point out here how much geography really can have to do with the way a play works - i.e., characters' attitudes, setting of the play, and even the way the audience perceives the play (depending on who you are).

Or, the author mentions how mapmaking became like an art or a science, and that collectors "attempted to write the world by compiling and classifying accounts of European travelers from across the globe." Immediately I thought of Mandeville, so it came as no surprise to me that Mandeville was brought up later on. I think it really adds a lot to a story to have a traveler be a part of it. I can experience whatever they are experiencing from the comfort of my dorm room (which is kind of like a small nation in itself). On the other hand, much of what Mandeville reported was heavily (and hilariously!) embellished, or perhaps downright mythical. I guess this just shows how those travel writers were so heavily influenced by legends and stories.

In either case, no matter how people viewed foreigners, I think that imaginations were still wont to run wild with curiosity about unexplored lands. I think this can even hold true today. Clearly the travel bug bit me, and so there always remains the option of visiting a new land and, besides learning something about that new culture, I might learn something about myself too. Sounds cheesy, and it might be really insignificant, but sometimes travelers can be a curious bunch.

Othello

I found this picture when I google-searched images of "Othello," it was my favorite one that I found.

I actually really enjoyed Othello. I am not always one for Shakespeare, but I did find this to be a good read. I was loathing Iago more and more as the play went along, and I couldn't help but think "what an a**" as the story progressed. As with my frustrations with teenage passions in Romeo and Juliet, I was also frustrated with Othello's unwavering trust in Iago, and his immediate jumping to conclusions without any substantial evidence whatsoever. I was surprised that, given Othello's normally very mature and slow-to-anger disposition as lieutenant, he was so quick to suspect Desdemona of infidelity. If it hadn't been for Iago fooling everyone like the puppets they were in his plan, no one would have ever had to be murdered in the first place. I guess one mark of a good writer is making the reader react in a way like this.

I wanted also to point out one interesting line from Desdemona (who sometimes has been referred to as "Desdemon"... does that mean anything or is it just a shorter way of saying her name? It's not really making it that much shorter). After Othello has smothered Desdemona in her bed on their wedding sheets (which I thought was weird), Emilia arrives and opens the bedcurtains to catch her mistress' dying breath. After Desdemona truthfully states that she has "died a guiltless death," Emilia asks her, "Oh, who hath done this deed?" Desdemona's response intrigues me: "Nobody; I myself. Farewell." Why does she say "I myself?" Is this because she is truly that good of a person that she will not even blame Othello for this after he killed her? Or, does she physically mean that no one killed her, but that she has murdered herself? I guess that when she says "I myself" then that could be taken both physically and metaphorically.

• What do you think Desdemona means when she says, "I myself"?

• Were you as frustrated with the way Othello took Iago so seriously without any real evidence too?

• Did you wonder also why Desdemona had Emilia make up their bed with their wedding sheets?

The Burdens Of Sister Margaret...

Honestly, I have enjoyed this book. There are a million details that I am trying to avoid getting too tangled up in, but I like reading about the scandal and the "oh-dear-what-will-happen-next" sort of style. I routinely find myself feeling bad for Sister Margaret and her many apparent troubles, because no one wants to be loathed like that "by pretty much everyone." Harline really seems to have done his research here with all those sources he found remaining from the convent of Bethlehem (I really want to go to the Netherlands, now, too!).

However, I have just one problem with the Burdens, and I wonder if anyone else felt the same way: I feel as though this is sort of like Cecilia Penifader, and that this huge and incredibly complicated story is being blown way out of proportion. I do not deny that it all happened, obviously (due to the treasure trove of letters Harline tells us about), but I feel like this entire thing is being dramatized and that we are creating this in our minds as we imagine it would have happened. I'm not saying that it didn't happen, but I feel like gleaning a story of this capacity seems to be... well, really difficult. I remember reading Cecilia Penifader and wondering how such a detailed account could have been written about her life, even given the facts we had about her. I don't know, maybe I am just rambling. Did anyone else find this story and the apparent scandal that went on within the 17th-century convents believable?