Neologism Society

Take that mother-in-law!

Above is my attempt to grab your attention and tell you exactly what my blog is about.  I'll continue trying to be more clever in future posts.

While finishing up my attempt to study for today's quiz I quickly Google searched the web for "neologisms" hoping a website might motivate me to coin my own word.  I still haven't come up with a word, but I did find this gem of a website where a Neologism Competition is offered once a month.  If he were alive today would Shakespeare the winner each month?  Or, by asking that am I admitting I believe that he is the reigning champ of wordsmithing?  My personal neologism is "guestion" as in "halfway between a guess and an answer to a question."  A person is guestioning and not answering when there voice slightly raises in pitch, signalling they aren't completely sure of the answer they are attempting to give.  Example:  When Dr. Sexson asked James the Rat for a quiz guestion, James guestioned something about mythology.  I hope guestion isn't actually a word...
I also like the word "lecturaction" or "lecturesation" which would essentially be when you are trying to partake in a conversation with another person, but they begin to lecture you on the subject originally intended to be discussed.  I also like to call these people "toppers" because they always have to prove you wrong, or out-do your knowledge on the subject at hand.

On a similar study-for-the-quiz note, I finally was able to use "These are the counselors that feelingly persuade me what I am.  My soon-to-be mother-in-law lives in Vermont and her bi-weekly emails typically are concerned with 1) the wedding 2) horses and 3) the weather.  The following is today's sequence of emails:

Lynn: How are you? I see that you have snow and it's ass cold out there.  Nice and sunny in Vermont today.  Did you win that HGTV dream house yet?  Eric and I will come and bring you guys back, but you have to start packing.

Me:  Have I told you that you are my favorite cynic in the world?  No, we did win the dream home and our weather is just delightful.  Must I remind you that it is February and still winter?  And, I don't believe that the sun is shining in Vermont.  You are full of lies.  You have grown soft in your old age woman.  We're staying...you might as well pack your bags and move out here.

Lynn:  I don't know why you want to live out there.  There are mountains with snow, horses, and ME in Vermont...don't you miss us?

Me:  My dearest mother-in-law, what Montana offers is what we desire most in our lives right now...for these are the counselors that feelingly persuade me what I am.

Lynn:  I speak English, write back when you do as well and you're ready to get your hands dirty...you little shit.

Don't get me wrong, Lynn is an amazing person and although we rarely see eye-to-eye she is one of my favorite people in this world.  She is the Touchstone in the play of my life; not because she is a fool, but because she criticizes the behaviors of those around her with bawdy innuendo.  Lynn may not seem like someone you'd like to have around, but having a fool/jester/Touchstone of person in your life is just as refreshing as having a Rosalind in your life.  The people in my life, just like the weather, are the counselors the feelingly persuade me what I am.

Would you like Frye with that?

Yes, please.

After reading Matt Helm's most recent blog I realized that we are having the same experience with Northrop Frye.  Similarly, I had excitement about Shakespeare, and I still do, but the excitement quickly faded to anxiety once I realized that my "easy last semester before student teaching" was only what I wanted to believe and not the truth.    So, I read, I think, I listen, but when it comes time for writing and putting it all together I get sleepy (aka lazy).  However, I decided early on in the semester that I would read Frye as my secondary text.  I originally ordered Hughes after the rave reviews from Dr. Sexson, but then once Carrie gave her review of the piece I regretted my $30 purchase.  Nevertheless Hughes sits on my bookshelf and occasionally shames me into flipping through the pages, but that is as far as I will be getting this semester.

Having read some of Frye during last year's Bible as Literature class I became a pseudo-fan.  The man is brilliant in his abilities to make connections that I could never fathom even stumbling upon, but it was only after  listening to Dr. Sexson speak about Frye and the Bible that I could understand it.  Still, I decided that Frye was my man and I would give it a shot (again) this semester.  Much to my delight this particular book is written in a less complex language and is much easier to read.  However, don't think for one minute that it isn't filled with a multitude of brilliancy because even my feeble mind can see that it is!

The following is a preview of Frye's Introduction and a few tidbits that were worth underlining in my book.

"...we get obsessed by the notion of using words to manipulate people and events, of the importance of saying things." (1)  NF goes on to say that if we were Shakespeare, or possessed his talents, we wouldn't write some of the anti-sematic, sexist, brutal or farce plays that he wrote, but instead use the drama for more noble purposes.  "One of the first points to get clear about Shakespeare is that he didn't use the drama for anything:  he entered into its conditions as they were then, and accepted them totally." (2)

"Shakespeare doesn't try to do things, he does them..." (2)

"The fact that the plays are mostly in verse means, among other things, that there are two levels of meaning:  a presented or surface meaning, and an underlying meaning given us by the metaphors and images used, or by certain subordinate or played-down events or speeches.  They've been called the "overthought" and "underthought."  (Also mentioned in class by Matt Helm)

"..children seem endlessly fascinated by the fact that a word can have more than one meaning.  The authors should have added that they ought to keep this fascination all their lives:  if they lose it when they grow up they're not maturing, just degenerating." (6)

The limitations of stage vs. film:  "We shouldn't overlook, though, the extent to which Shakespeare turned limitations into positive qualities." (8) 

The four humors:  blood, phlegm, bile, black bile

The four principles:  hot, cold, moist, dry

A few more tidbits exist about particular plays, but I'll wait to share those with you once we begin discussing the plays in class.  If you're not reading Frye...maybe you should...it could be the best $7 you spend towards Shakespeare.

AMSND

Photo: Bill Cooper

My first experience with A Midsummer Night's Dream was in high school, but I never read the play.  I can clearly remember watching a fellow member of the NFL (Speech Team) performing part of Act 5.  He was hilarious and entertaining, much like the Central Park movie clip (my favorite) from yesterday.  This young man's talents allowed him to play Pyramus, Thisbe, and the Wall with ease.  I believe he went on to be a national contender in the National Forensics League.  Now, I read Act 5 over and over, but I always hear the same voices and picture the same scene in my head thanks to the hilarious exposure from 13 years ago.  By doing so I have become somewhat boxed into my own mind and can't see past what I've already seen.  I feel as though I am a mechanical and think that I am doing a great job, but in all reality my performance is a laughing matter.


When asked what is the significance of Act 5 I wasn't sure, but assumed that the answer(s) could be found in a thorough rereading of the text.  I read, and read again, but couldn't quite find what I was looking for.  When I attempted to consult my fellow school of nighters it became quickly evident that we were all on a very different page and did not agree on the course of action to take.  At first I attempted to look at the act as a whole, and then I tried to break it down for different answers.  Both attempts proved to be futile; until I recognized that one sentence kept playing over and over in my head.
Theseus asks, "How shall we find the concord of this discord?"  Perhaps it was because at first I was not sure what Theseus was asking, but then I pieced together that he was questioning how harmony could be found in such discontent.  Shakespeare is showing the audience/the reader the "bigger picture" through a comedy that very easily could have ended as a tragedy.  The hilarity of the play within a play is found through potential tragedy that is eventually resolved.  The play of Pyramus and Thisbe is hilarious because of the very ideas that threatened the characters previously.  The effect of opposites is found in AMSND (as well as other Shakespeare plays) in the way that the comedy is intensified by the possibility of drama or tragedy.  


In a brief exchange of words with Roberto he pointed out that he believed that Act 5 was solidifying the idea that love in all of its many forms is deserved by all.  Basically, that all people deserve love.  I didn't disagree with his theory, but I couldn't quite accept its certainty either.  However, once recalling how Titania fell in love with the ass-headed weaver I began to understand where Roberto was coming from; as well as seeing again how Shakespeare juxtaposes such strong opposites to create an extreme emotion or feeling.


The fate of the four lovers easily could have turned out differently, as could have the fate of Pyramus and Thisbe.  Without the final act we would not be able to consider such extremes.  The "story" ended in the fourth act, but Shakespeare gives his audience time in the fifth act to determine why he was telling the story in the first place.  The idea that "it was all a dream" only further alludes to the possibilities that could have been in the character's fate.  A dream challenges the idea of what is reality and what is imagination; as does the fifth act in general.

Rough Beginnings

I wonder if Shakespeare ever had trouble writing.  When he was asked to conjure up a language masterpiece did he ever stay up all night sweating under the candlelight?  Did Bill panic and feel the anxiety of the judgement that was imminent?  Perhaps, he never worried at all, but I am not Bill.    

I am not Shakespeare's biggest fan, nor do I despise his linguistic masterpieces.  Similarly, I am intimidated by the Shakespeare-like-ease of writing that my classmates exude in their blogs because I simply can't compete.  I'm not comfortable with being thrown into a pseudo School of Night for the very same reason that I'm not completely comfortable blogging.  However, I did find a bit of solace in Frederick Turner's Blog on The School of Night (I also found a large dose of frustration in following what he was saying, but that's for another time.)  Turner writes,

"I do not mean to imply that the School of Night was a sort of club, with rules and membership-cards. It was more like a sort of loose network, changing and adding to itself as time passed, conducting ideas very rapidly across its membership, and, though a nucleus is clearly identifiable, without a clear boundary line. We have in the School of Night a living demonstration of the actual workings of a Zeitgeist or “climate of thought”; a civilization is not an impersonal force but a network of conversations in which ideas are generated and developed. There is no “program” except the program that the conversation itself creates; and people join and drop out of the conversation in no systematic way."

So here me out on this one...in the Literature/English world here at MSU there seems to be a major clash continuously happening between the Literature students and the English Education students.  To the Ed. students the Lit students seem to require some sort of secret membership-card or maybe a jazzy handshake; as if they really belonged to a secret society.  Then there are the Ed. students who joyfully pass out invitations to join their club to any takers just so they can share what they know.  Both majors sound like cults if you ask me (perhaps I'm just old enough to not care).  So naturally, as we form our own School of Night groups there is some unresolved tension and perhaps a bit of attitude.  However, if we all realize that our groups have been formed to generate and develop ideas and are simply a "network of conversations" then perhaps this won't be that bad.  The original school of night had many members and took place over a period of time much longer than our semester, but I believe that maybe, just maybe my group members can help me out with Shakespeare...even if I am an English Education major.

We are essentially all working in the same "climate of thought" and that is to learn more (or in my case, anything) about Bill.  He is kind of like our founding father and Dr. Sexson our knowledgeable leader.  I applaud the efforts of my classmates and I am enthused to hear/read about their insights; please forgive me if I do not woo you in the same way.  As I mentioned in my last blog post, I am attempting to make a connection with Bill that I can share with my future students. (Lit majors probably will want to stop reading now)  The first important connection I think that is important to make is that of how deciphering Shakespeare requires work from not a single mind, but that of an entire group, a secret-society, a school of night.  

The Giving Tree

Yes, I admit that I have felt inferior lately in my ability to express my knowledge of Shakespeare, or the connections that I haven't yet made...and likewise I have felt a similar inferiority when reading about the books of my classmates that are their "Bibles" because my book isn't long and it isn't intense or philosophical.  It's short and colorful, with words that are easy to read and a lesson that is unmistakable.  Laugh at me if you must, but my "Bible" is Shel Silverstein's, The Giving Tree.  


In a few small ways I believe that this story could be related to Shakespeare because it is simply about a relationship between a boy and a tree in the forest.  Shakespeare always writes about relationships and the element of nature appears both in Shakespeare and the book.  Perhaps it is a far stretch, but nevertheless I enjoy this book.  Too often I feel like I am searching for answers and meaning while I read the texts suggested to me in my classes.  Even when I pick up a book of my own choosing I find myself needing to analyze every detail as though I am a trained detective who can no longer view the world for what is it at that very moment.  With The Giving Tree the message is clear and the few words speak volumes.  This book represents the human condition in my mind and I applaud it for taking something so complex and making it understandable for all ages.  My admittance of liking a "children's book" in an upper level literature class may cause some to raise their noses at me, but I don't mind.  Perhaps we all should reread a simply story about a boy and a tree.

Simple Thoughts of Sonnet 129

Since we didn't spend much class time discussing the sonnets that we were assigned to read I'm going to make a few comments on number 129.  I'm familiar with most of the other sonnets on the list, but this particular work struck me as new and refreshing.  Truly Bill was no stranger to love and lust, as it is scene parodied over and over throughout all of his poems and plays, but with this sonnet he attempts to twist the traditional "love story" into more of a biting criticism on lust.  Seemingly, it is always lust that gets characters and people into trouble.  The following is Sonnet 129


The expense of spirit in a waste of shame 

 image courtesy of Beinecke Rare Book
 and Manuscript Library, Yale University

Is lust in action; and till action, lust 
Is perjured, murderous, bloody, full of blame, 
Savage, extreme, rude, cruel, not to trust, 
Enjoy’d no sooner but despised straight, 
Past reason hunted, and no sooner had 
Past reason hated, as a swallow’d bait 
On purpose laid to make the taker mad; 
Mad in pursuit and in possession so; 
Had, having, and in quest to have, extreme; 
A bliss in proof, and proved, a very woe; 
Before, a joy proposed; behind, a dream. 
   All this the world well knows; yet none knows well 
   To shun the heaven that leads men to this hell. 


I particularly enjoy this poem because it reads differently to me...almost violently.  In the first eight lines the speaker tells us what lust is.  Lust certainly isn't a "summer's day" but instead it is "savage, extreme, rude, cruel, not to trust."  There isn't a better way to describe it.  In the language of this sonnet you can actually feel the intensity of lust and how dancing with lust will only humor you for a moment, then spit you back out with a heart shamefully ripped to shreds.  Like a typical Shakespearean sonnet there is a build-up throughout the quatrains; in this case it seems that the speaker is talking about the build up of lust, and the actual action of lust.  The sonnet suggests that lust is maddening and even contagious. 


 It is not to say that lust is without passion.  In Venus and Adonis  the love affair between the two was full of sexual passion, but in the end it was only sexual lust that Adonis felt towards his adoring Venus.  And, an argument could easily be made that Venus simply lusted for and not loved the hansom hunter.  It is humorous to consider that Venus, the goddess of love, succumbed to lust.  Adonis attempts to protest the lustful attack from Venus, but "she murders him with a kiss" thus only furthering the power of lust that Shakespeare identifies is Sonnet 129.  One more similarity I'd like to point out in closing is that of the last two lines of the sonnet, All this the world we know; yet none knows well/  To shun the heaven that leads men to this hell.  And, the following lines from Venus and Adonis, Poor queen of love, in thine own law forlorn/ To love a cheek that smiles at thee in scorn! (lines 251-252)  There is a certain amount of failure that should be expected when once lusts after another, and even when two lust towards one another.  Venus, goddess of love, failed at love.  Perhaps she should have been more familiar with sonnet 129.