WE ARE NOT USB PORTS

While probing my periodicals for voice-heavy passages, I asked myself: How does my voice come through in my writing? How do I know that it’s me behind the words? I perused some of my more professor-popular papers, and found the ones I most enjoyed reading were—surprise-surprise—the ones I most enjoyed writing.  They concerned subjects I was comfortable with and confident in—subjects I loved.

What does this have to do with the assignment five? Lots. I  discovered in my search for voice-heavy passages, that they were identifiable through tone, strong stance; they made a statement, and let me the reader know that the author was well informed, confident and worthy not only of my attention, but my trust.

It’s about confidence, self assurance—charge. Let’s take a look at some examples from Jonathan H. Collett’s Milton's Use of Classical Mythology in "Paradise Lost."

But a more skillfully controlled handling of the myths to meet the demands of theme and genre must not be mistaken for a rejection of the gods and goddesses as a fertile source of imagery. (88)

This passage struck me as particularly voicey. Why? Because the author here assumes we have, or might potentially be making a mistake: we “must not be mistaken” regarding X. Though he supports the concern, the statement crackles with confidence.

But the express purpose here is to show how the poet's manipulation of this traditional, though now highly qualified, element of imagery in Paradise Lost can be a way of determining the underlying structure of the imagery as a whole in the poem. There are practically no instances in Paradise Lost of myth used exclusively for visual physical description as there are, for example, in Chapman, the Fletchers, or others of the "Spenserians," or in the similes of Homer. Milton's epic similes involving mythical comparisons are point for point relevant to the action of the story. (88)

Here the author takes an even stronger stance: “There are practically no instances in Paradise Lost of myth used exclusively for visual physical description…” --Straight mettle! a sense of—again—confidence: He's saying : Yes, I have examined this poem, and can assure you that X is not Y, but is in fact Z.

The myths likening Eve to the classical goddesses have been well covered by the editors and critics and need only some short comment here to make the picture complete. (93)

Here again we are reassured of the Collett's authority: “myths likening Eve to the classical goddesses have been well covered by the editors and critics…” The author makes it clarion clear that he is familiar with all that has hitherto been said concerning this issue (the myths likening Eve to classical goddesses): ‘Don’t  waste time worrying about this—trust me: this subject has been thoroughly covered; in fact the puzzle is all but complete; and it is I who have come to complete it!’

Is it all about confidence?—nope. But I do think that it plays a part. I imagine that voice has something to do with that thing they call "subjectivity." In class, the professor made a few remarks concerning some doctoral candidates he’s training, students that could tell you anything about what has been said about a subject, but not what they themselves thought. There is nothing wrong with cold, hard, de- -tached logical analysis, but let’s not forget: WE ARE NOT USB PORTS. Think about it, if it was only about what others thought, then how long would it be before our beloved field, blossoming with ideas, peeping with blessed possibilities, became a sterile steppe? 



Collett, Jonathan H. "Milton's Use of Classical Mythology in "Paradise Lost"" PMLA 85.1 (1970): 88-            96.Print.

Assignment #4, Part II

I just received an email from our professor offering some thesis formulation assistance. According to Professor Richter, there is a DevilOne and a DevilTwo. DevilOne is a religious figure, “God’s other.” DevilTwo is a literary figure.

DevilTwo is based on DevilOne, but DevilOne is fluid. The professor pointed to Goethe’s Mephistopheles (a DevilTwo) that is based on Luther’s devil (a DevilOne). You see the point: DevilTwo is a function of DevilOne, and since DevilOne is fluid, so is DevilTwo. 

I just finished reading Paradise Lost again--finally! Consider Milton’s Satan. If the professor’s assertion is correct (and it is), Milton’s’ DevilTwo is based on the DevilOne of his time, of his place, what the professor termed the “local” devil.

With this in mind, it seems that I need to find out as much as possible about  Milton’s local devil (courtesy of Luther), what his attributes were etc. Then, after giving this DevilOne figure a shape, I can  superimpose it on Milton's Satan and identify the common denominators/differences.

My job at this point is to outline parameters, discover just what Milton had in mind and what was available to him.

My new question is this: What, with specific attention to the devil-figure in Paradise Lost,  differentiates DevilOne from DevilTwo?

If I can find out what precisely differentiates DevilOne from DevilTwo, then I may actually have something to contribute to the discussion.

Any thoughts?

SATURDAY MORNING STUNNER, COURTESY OF NIETZSCHE

A fable.— The Don Juan of knowledge: no philosopher or poet has yet discovered him. He does not love the things he knows, but has spirit and appetite for an enjoyment of the chase and intrigues of knowledge—up to the highest and remotest stars of knowledge!—until at last there remains to him nothing of knowledge left to hunt down except the absolutely detrimental; he is like the drunkard who ends by drinking absinthe and aqua fortis. Thus in the end he lusts after Hell—it is the last knowledge that seduces him. Perhaps it too proves a disillusionment, like all knowledge! And then he would have to stand to all eternity transfixed to disillusionment and himself become a stone guest, with a longing for a supper of knowledge which he will never get!—for the whole universe has not a single morsel left to give to this hungry man.

--from section 327 of Nietzsche's Daybreak

Assignment #4 (so far)

Hello, brother bloggers and sisters scripters.Well, this is where I am with assignment four. This is NOT the finished product, but I thought it wise to share anyway.

1) My question:           

Who or what is the Devil? Can the word “Devil” be defined--categorically? or is it like the word “game”?: Ludwig Wittgenstein posited that the term game eludes definition (see below*). If this is the case, if the term is indeed fated to the same terminal plasticity, then what do we mean when we use it? 

2) How did I arrive at this question?

This is complicated. I have always been fascinated by the Devil. Who is he? Where did he come from? And –most importantly—how did a being created in goodness, out of goodness, become evil? The standard explanations that rely on free will and hubris are unsatisfactory.

3) Where I think this question might lead:

At this time, my line of question points at one of two conclusions: either the term “Devil” is 1) terminally plastic, or 2) it is not.

If “it is not,” then why not? That is, if it is not fluid, then there must be a fixed definition out there, which I will, through an examination of various texts, attempt to discover and provide.

*Consider for example the proceedings that we call "games". I mean board-games, card-games, ball-games, Olympic games, and so on. What is common to them all? -- Don't say: "There must be something common, or they would not be called 'games' "-but look and see whether there is anything common to all. -- For if you look at them you will not see something that is common to all, but similarities, relationships, and a whole series of them at that. To repeat: don't think, but look! -- Look for example at board-games, with their multifarious relationships. Now pass to card-games; here you find many correspondences with the first group, but many common features drop out, and others appear. When we pass next to ball-games, much that is common is retained, but much is lost.-- Are they all 'amusing'? Compare chess with noughts and crosses. Or is there always winning and losing, or competition between players? Think of patience. In ball games there is winning and losing; but when a child throws his ball at the wall and catches it again, this feature has disappeared. Look at the parts played by skill and luck; and at the difference between skill in chess and skill in tennis. Think now of games like ring-a-ring-a-roses; here is the element of amusement, but how many other characteristic features have disappeared! sometimes similarities of detail.
--Section 66, Philosophical Investigations.

SATURDAY MORNING BRAIN BLAST

“If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.”




                                                                       --Voltaire





My first question is one that I initially overlooked: How is the Devil defined? The other day I read a short essay by Voltaire: "On India, Brahmins and their Theology, Imitated Very Late by the Jews and then by the Christians” which, among other things, explores the concept of the Devil: his origins and manifestations. For instance, though today we may assume that Satan and Lucifer are one--they are not. In fact they represent two wholly different aspects of reality: one light—Lucifer; one dark—Satan.

This got me thinking: what about his other names and manifestations: Beelzebub, Abbadon, etc.? Though Milton clearly distinguishes the former from Satan, many sources do not. Which leads to another question, or series of questions: which manifestation of the dark prince did Stephen Vincent Benét have in mind when penning “The Devil and Daniel Webster”? It is hard to imagine that Mr. Scratch had much in common with Milton’s Satan or the Red Dragon of Revelation.

This all leads me to one ineluctable question: What we are talking about when we say the Devil? What precisely do we mean? When Twain, or Milton, or “J” was referring to the Devil, what did each have in mind; and—perhaps more importantly—what do ALL of these manifestations have in common—if anything?


The result of this investigation will most likely lead to one of two conclusions: 1) that the term "Devil" is terminally plastic, or 2) there is indeed a denominator common to the various manifestations, something to the term "Devil," that though impossible to define absolutely, is nonetheless valid: the term “game” though lacking precise definition, is still understood by all who use it (Wittgenstein).


The next objective is to, having defined  the Devil, cite each and everyone of his manifestations in literature in the English language: Any work of literature, from “Lucifer in Starlight” to "The Mysterious Stranger"—everything.


This second objective might be beyond the scope of an MA thesis, but still might be worth considering.

How to Write a Dissertation Prospectus -- powered by eHow.com