..and on and on

James H. Kavanagh likes long sentences. And most of the time they do not enlighten the reader, but only confuse them. Its hard to keep focused on the point when a sentence runs on for half a paragraph. Yet, I'm more than half way through his essay Ideology, and I'm still not sure on the true definition of ideology. This is troublesome since I eagerly signed up to write an essay on it. Woo. Anyways, just taking a break from the reading and getting all my frustration out about Jimmy K and his run-on-and-on sentences before heading back to the world of Ideology....

~mr

There's no recovery for the broken heart..

At least not in Shakespear's King Lear. Lear, who exiled his own daughter because she did not profess her love for him to his liking, was overcome with grief when she died. So overcome with grief that he died, too. His frail and weakened body also contributed to his death; but, as Shakespeare told it, his weakened heart was what really killed him. Ever since that time he banished his favorite daughter, he was distraught and disheartened. Over time, it took a toll on his mentality and emotions, leading to his demise.
You could say that Lear deserved the pain and suffering that eventually led to his death. He disowned his own daughter because she didn't shower him with praise and false flattery. But then again, he had realized the error in his ways and begged Cordelia's forgiveness, and all was well between them. Then they both die. Shakespeare wasn't in the mood for a happy ending, obviously, because Lear and Cordelia weren't the only ones who didn't make it through to the end. Edmund, Goneril, and Regan also died. But you could say they deserved it too.
But what about Cordelia? She didn't deserve to be killed; she was honest and good, yet she was banished and murdered. There wasn't a happy ending for her, and there can't be much closure if everyone is dead. However, that was a theme throughout the book: everything doesn't always work out like it should, and sometimes there is no recovering from grief.

~MR

Interpretation

"When I think back on all the crap I learned

 in high school,

It's a wonder I can think at all.

The lack of education hasn't hurt me none. 

I can read all the writing on the wall.

--Paul Simon, 'Kodachrome'

Reading words on walls. Explicating poems in classrooms. Making sense of treaties in Congress. Reading, explicating, making sense: these are the three names given to the activity of 'interpretation,' the topic of..." high school.  So this is partially how the essay starts, with the exception of the last two words. Steven Mailloux's Interpretation... obviously it's about the act of interpreting. But, in the essence of irony, I decided to interpret it in my own way. 

The beginning of the essay got me into it. (I know! Me getting interested in a reading assignment... what's up with that?) I got interested because that's what I, along with most other high school students, must go through. Day in, and day out. Reading words, explicating poems, making sense of things. That's the point of high school. But how much fun is that really? Even Simon says education isn't all that important. 

I understand education is important; it's essential in today's society. How much wall-reading, poem-explicating, and sense-making of treaties do we really need after high school, though? If you go onto college to master in something of the sort, that's understandable. But if you don't, isn't that just a waste of time?

Furthermore, when reading the essay, I realized that all this interpreting nonsense wasn't written very well. It's kind of a common theme of the paper apparently. This is where this "lack of education hasn't hurt me none" comment is evident in the writing. "All these strategies-- historicizing, allegorizing, punning, and using etymologies-- can be restated as rules for correct interpretation." Aren't high school students always criticized in writing when we don't use parallel sentence structure? I'm pretty sure it's kind of a big deal. Especially since it's part of the SATs. It should be " --historicizing, allegorizing, etymologizing, and punning--," shouldn't it? 

Also, how can there be a correct way of interpreting something? Isn't it all opinion in the end? Isn't it how each individual understands the text? Is there really a right way to do it?

~KD

Let me not to the marriage of true minds

Although I have no idea what the title means, I really liked Shakespeare's poem, also known as "Sonnet 16". It was about love, and how if it truly is love, it can withstand time and survive whatever challenges it has to endure, while never changing and always being steadfast. The tone of the poem was uplifting and almost admiring -- admiring love. It was a total opposite of the last Shakespeare poem we read, about loss and regret. But I got to hand it to Shakespeare, I really liked this poem. Basically, it just made me happy.

~MR

Jones Soda = Love

I love Jones Soda. I really do. If there was one drink I had to choose to live off of for the rest of eternity, it would be Jones Soda. Fufu Berry, of course. Or Berry Lemonade or M.F. Grape (M.F? I never got that). And the only reason I'm writing this is because I want one SO BAD right now. I'm so thirsty. And we talked about blogging in class so I was in the mood to write a post, and this is what I decided it should be on. But seriously, if you haven't ever tasted the amazingness that is Jones Soda you are missing out completely and your life is meaningless. Plus, with every bottle you get a fortune in the bottle cap, and every bottle has a different picture. It's pretty much the best thing since sliced bread, and that's all I have to say about it.

~MR

Is it irony?

On the cover of the copy of King Lear that we were handed, it says NEWLY REVISED EDITION highlighted in gold. Sure it may have been newly revised, but I'm thinking that it should be translated into today's language. Screw Shakespeare and his own language. If I'm supposed to know what it's talking about and it's in a completely different dialect, how do you think that's going to go? Maybe Rosinski's wicked "brainy students" will be able to figure it out. But apparently, when it comes to understanding Shakespeare, I am not one of those "brainy students." Sorry. 

~KD

"My Lord of Burgundy..."

With seeing the title of this post, one would think I have something intelligent to say about where it came from. That's not true. I have to admit, I'm a little behind on the reading of Shakespeare's King Lear, but no matter how long it takes me to read it, that doesn't mean I'm comprehending what's going on. Every time I go to open the book and read, I start to drift off. That's how exciting this monumental play of modernity is. 

The only thing I find somewhat amusing about this classic is the whole Burgundy character. The only thing I think of is Anchorman. And what's not amusing about that movie? Every line that says "My Lord of Burgundy," or something of the sort, makes me imagine Brick, Champ, or Brian yelling to Ron. I know it's a far stretch, but that's the only thing that's keeping me reading the actual play and not the Sparknotes. 

With that said, I have every intention on reading every word. The problem with that is, I am not that far into it and have no idea what is going on. That can't be a good thing considering there are many more Acts to read. I'm hoping that reading it and attempting to remember it, along with paying attention to class discussions will help me understand what's going on. I don't think reading alone will do it for me though. 

~KD