Pages

28 August 2013

:: I request the honour of your presence ::

lately, I've been amusing myself by making sketchy plans (pun!) for literary wedding invitations. it's been excessively diverting. 

this is the first set I came up with. I'm calling it 'violets' since that is pertinent to the invite design and subject matter (I get formal when I get ridiculous. on this blog I'm always formal, which should tell you something about its content). anyway, here it is. 

click for a larger, pixellated version!

I'm keeping the book an open secret. if you can figure it out, super, but I'm not going to say. (it's much more entertaining that way.) I had to guess at the date for the wedding, because the book only says -- within a conversation between lucy and george -- that they were married in spring. I randomly said april 10th, which somehow seemed appropriate; but then, I've also arranged the date ("4.10.08") in the american style, whereas they would write it in the british style ("10.4.08"). so there are some glitches I'll have to work out.

eventually I'll get around to making a real, live copy and then the content will actually be readable. har har. 

23 August 2013

:: day five - what to take home ::

       I would recommend taking home sir walter scott paraphernalia. like a mug. mugs are good, and so is sir walter, and so is coffee. or maybe a sweatshirt -- wear it loud and wear it proud.
       oooor maybe you should just buy the books.

    anyway, let's wrap this week up with a "where to go from here" sort of theme. it's probable, if you've followed along, that you were either a die-hard scott fan already and so this is all pretty superfluous, or you were so intrigued by my hooks and descriptions that you avidly searched out all the walter scott you could and this is all superfluous to you, too. (I'm in favor of the latter, but the former is more likely.) so I'll phrase this to a hypothetical friend of mine who wants advice, because I love giving advice! well, this friend says, "I've been really interested in what you've said about sir walter scott on your blog." and I say, "ye-e-e-es...?" they say, "I would love to read some of his stuff, but I just don't know where to start! what would you suggest?" oh, advice-giving heaven.

the six novels I would suggest: 
1. ivanhoe. it's good, but it's also a classic. everyone should read classics.

2. the heart of midlothian. this may be hypocritical of me, since I haven't read it yet myself, but it is a famous book. and I'd betcha it's good. 

3. the pirate. pirates, swordfights, miracles, chases, escapes, true love.... 

4. the talisman. exhilarating: good poetry, knights in shining armor, chivalry, richard coeur-de-lion (whom I've liked ever since robin hood). and blondel. whoop whoop. seriously, it's a good crusade story.

5. the antiquary. this was not one I loved, but it was good; it's pretty well-known, I think, and there are some great characters.

6. waverley. because, evan dhu. oh, right, and it was also his trademark novel.  

...remember, most people will give you a blank look if you name one of these. if you're going for name recognition, you might have to stick to catching fire. but these are the prices we must pay for quality.
       my personal top 5 favorites, just for the record, are redgauntlet, the pirate, count robert of paris, the abbot, castle dangerous and the black dwarf (the last two are both half-length, in case you suspect I can't count).  
       
- - - quotes - - - 

A dispute occurred whether the Gaelic or Italian language was most liquid, and best adapted for poetry; the opinion for the Gaelic, which probably might not have found supporters elsewhere, was here fiercely defended by seven Highland ladies, who talked at the top of their lungs, and screamed the company deaf with examples of Celtic euphonia. 

- waverley, ch. 54

"In troth, Signior Guest," said Giles Gosling, "if I were to travel only that I might be discontented with that which I can get at home, methinks I should go but on a fool's errand."
- kenilworth, ch. 1

"Lady! dear lady! For whom, or for what, in Heaven's name, do you take me, that you address me so formally?"

Had the question been asked in that enchanted hall in fairyland, where all interrogations must be answered with absolute sincerity, Darsie had certainly replied, that he took her for the most frank-hearted and ultra-liberal lass that had ever lived since Mother Eve ate the pippin without paring. But as he was still on middle-earth, and free to avail himself of a little polite deceit, he barely answered that he believed he had the honour of speaking to the niece of Mr. Redgauntlet. 
- redgauntlet, ch. 17

Time rolls his ceaseless course. The race of yore, 

       Who danced our infancy upon their knee,
And told our marvelling boyhood legends store
       Of their strange ventures happed by land or sea,
How are they blotted from the things that be!
       How few, all weak and withered of their force, 
Wait on the verge of dark eternity,
       Like stranded wrecks, the tide returning hoarse, 
To sweep them from out sight! Time rolls his ceaseless course.
- lady of the lake, canto 3

Oft in my mind such thoughts awake,
By lone Saint Mary's silent lake;
Thou know'st it well, -- nor fen, nor sedge,
Pollute the pure lake's crystal edge;
Abrupt and sheer, the mountains sink
At once upon the level brink;
And just a trace of silver sand 
Marks where the water meets the land.
- marmion, introduction to canto 2

- - -  

       this has been a glorious week for me. due to the curse of knowledge, I'm not sure if I presented any real information; knowing my writing, I'm relatively sure my posts have been muddled and incomprehensible. but what the heck -- I have had so much fun researching sir walter scott and it's been fascinating discovering new stuff he wrote (... like two posthumously published books. yep, the siege of malta was his last finished work, and I'm all, "have to read!!" his later-novel popularity was really dropping off and critics were being, well, critical, as he neared the end, but I actually like more of his later stuff than his earlier. so I'm hopeful).

and now. "adieu, dear [reader]! life and health, and store of literary wealth" I wish you. may you still be reading scott Sixty Years Hence.
- - -  
     

22 August 2013

:: day four - the poetry of ::

sound, sound the clarion! fill the fife! I've been wallowing in sir walter's poetry just for this post, and ... oh. glorious. 

to be painfully honest, I'd only read a little of his poetry until this week. sure, I knew about "breathes there the man with soul so dead" and "lochinvar", but I didn't even know until around last thursday that "what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive" was a direct quote from marmion. walter scott! who knew, right?


so it was a wonderful surprise to find that he really did deserve that proffered poet laureate title, and that byron wrote an urgent request from italy to get a copy of rokeby. since I pathetically lack head knowledge of basic facts about scott's poetry, that will greatly shallow-fy today's post, and it will probably be a lot of my fan-girl fluff about "oh, I just love this poem, and isn't it fantastic, and don't you just want to swoon?" 


well, a little boring history out of the way first. scott was writing poetry well before his novel-producing career; his first published poetry, in 1796, was a translation of burger's "lenore" and "the wild huntsman". (for history of the originals, see wikipedia. interesting, but tangential to this discussion.) between an edited/translated version of sir tristrem and his original the lay of the last minstrel, by 1805, scott had shot to fame as an accomplished poet. although he produced well-received works for the next ten years -- such as marmion (1808) and rokeby (1812) -- he felt that his popularity was dropping off, because the numbers that would have been the making of a lesser poet were a significant underachievement for him. discouraged about the reception of his anonymously published "the bridal of triermain" (1813), he stopped writing poetry altogether. -- fortunately for us; because then he turned to novel-writing, hijinx ensued, and we all lived happily ever after. except, of course, for evan dhu a few unlucky ones, whom I won't mention here. (I know, I put the 'b' in 'subtle'.)


and now for the fun part! 


these are some of the short poems I've read and completely enjoyed, though several of them (marked by an *) are from longer works. (you can find most, if not all, of his poetry here at poemhunter's ws page.)


- "answer"

- "coronach"*
- "eleu loro"*
- "farewell to the muse"*
- "flora macivor's song"* 
- "wandering willie"
- "the maid of toro"
- "the noble moringer"
- "saint cloud"
- "harp of the north, farewell!"*

- - - 


and now for review-y discussions of three long, narrative scott poems that I've read over the past week. because you care what my opinion is. 


the bridal of triermain 
       I really enjoyed this poem. it's long, but worth it. the frame story is the introduction; it involves the lovers, lucy and arthur, who are meeting in the woods, and arthur tells this tale to his beloved (though considering the content, I'm not sure ... why). the first inner story is about a certain roland de vaux who dreams of a beautiful girl and vows to search her out and marry her. during his search, he finds a man who tells the second inner story, a tale about camelot, hundreds of years before; de vaux comes to understand king arthur's illegitimate daughter is the girl he saw, cursed to sleep in an enchanted castle until the right dude comes along (sound familiar?). our man roland's adventures and exploits are described, as he must overcome fear, greed, lust, and pride before winning the girl. I'll let you guess how it all turns out.
       you're right! lucy and arthur do get married and live happily ever after! how did you know?!
       as far as the lyrical quality went... wow. his rhyme scheme is, like, impeccable and the words he uses are just beautiful. the meter changes several times throughout, but it moves the story along, switching between a more complicated pattern (with arthur and lucy) and a simpler, ballad-like pattern (for the medieval parts). I loved it.  
       it was really hard to find a full but easy-enough-to-read version of this poem, though; the best I could come up with was at 'the camelot project' -- click here.

the lady of the lake

      with this one, I don't even know where to start. ("...the beginning?" thanks.) 
       the first three stanzas, which serve as a kind of prelude to the poem, were probably the most boring and worst parts of the poem. also, I loved them. after the first three stanzas, the poem got better and better and to sum up my experience in three words: I adored it. I mean, this was the best lengthy poem I have ever read. it was amazing. the lyrical quality was awesome (and I mean that in the colloquial way), the descriptions were breathtaking, the story was fast-paced and had enough characters to keep it interesting (but not too many for confusion). on a scale of 1-10, I'd give this 9.5. maybe 9.8. I refrain from a 10 just because I feel like there must be something wrong with it, right? ...you can get lady at gutenberg.org. I don't care if it looks hard to read, read it!! 
       gosh. it was beautiful. *dies in ecstasy 

marmion

       if this poem had been any longer -- especially if the introduction/dedications before each canto had been longer -- I don't know if I would have made it. maybe somewhere ages and ages hence, but it would have taken me a long time. I think this story, exciting as it is, would have been better as a novel; it has a distinct scott flavor, with battles and highlanders and mystical elements that can be fully explained. it has a bad guy who gets his comeuppance, a good guy who triumphs, a dramatic, melancholy, conflicted, beautiful fallen woman and her pure counterpart... very much sir walter's style. the plot is rather complicated, so being in rhyme makes it that much more difficult to grasp.
       however. the plot is complicated, so it makes for a layered, complex story. the characters develop. the descriptions are fabulous (dude, the battle scene at flodden field. I had a serious adrenaline rush, scott does such a good job with the tension). 
       overall, I liked it; would I read it again? maybe, though I'd skip the dedication parts without qualms this time (oh no, did I just admit I skipped some of the poem? horrors). on a scale of 1 to lady of the lake, I'd place the entire thing at 7 -- good, enjoyable, but I have to say it had some tedious parts. and I feel bad about that, like it's wrong for me to not like it, or something. ...oh well. ignoring the dedications (which technically aren't part of the narrative), I would boost marmion an 8.5 -- not a 9 because, frankly, there were just some parts that were hard to understand. although I wouldn't be surprised if that's only because I'm used to 21st-century english and he was not. overall, I can definitely see why this would be a bestseller. (you can read marmion at gutenberg.org.)
  [after writing my 'review' I was reading about the poem's original reception and found that my reaction was similar to others', even at the time. I feel a little better now :)]

- - - 


       so that was an overview of scott's poetry. I am really, really happy that I did it, because I would have missed so much had I stuck only to his novels.

       tomorrow is the last day of ISWSW. how sad... but love will still be lord of all!*

*listen to loreena mckennitt's musical rendition of scott's poem "the english ladye and the knight". very good way to round out a day on sir walter's poetry.    

21 August 2013

:: day three - exclusive interview! ::

we have a guest speaker with us today: sir walter scott! aruguably the most popular and most influential writer of the 19th century, he is the author of bestsellers like old mortality and the creator of beloved characters such as madge wildfire, dugald dalgetty, and evan dhu maccombich.

thank you for coming out here, and answering some questions for us.


walter scott: my pleasure.


dj: yesterday I covered five of your best-known novels, but I considered them through a 21st-century lens -- the books which still have name recognition or a specific impact on our society today. what would you consider your best-known work?


ws: honestly, probably waverley will win out every time. being my first, some would say my best, and definitely the one that became my trademark, it was my best-known novel... in my time. for you, I would have to say ivanhoe has beaten waverley in the societal impact category.


dj: very true. ivanhoe has a more romantic appeal, I think, because it deals with knights and fair ladies, while waverley... well, you have to wade through a little more history, and most people don't know the royal history of great britain. which is sad, because I love evan dhu. but everyone is familiar with the crusaders, more or less.


ws: ivanhoe is much more adaptable to the screen, as well. there have been quite a few movie renditions of it -- in fact, isn't there an ivanhoe due to come out sometime in 2014?


dj: yes. and it's starring neil jackson who might be playing sir percy in the next scarlet pimpernel movie!!!!

....
ahem. sorry, I get sidetracked easily. next question.

which character was the most fun to create? wamba the jester -- isabella wardour -- evan dhu?

ws: yyyyyyyyeah. no. 

oh, that's hard to say. I don't think I can pin it down to one specifically. as far as categories go, some were enjoyable because of the dialogue, like ralph mareschal-wells [the black dwarf]; others I enjoyed for their complexity. it's like a puzzle, to attempt to reveal a character to the reader without completely exposing their true identity in the story, and I was always trying to do it better. like with the catherine/henry seyton cross-over [the abbot] or the seemingly multiple characters, all played by saladin, in the talisman. I couldn't stop thinking of new ways to disguise and reveal characters; to me, those were the most fun to write.

dj: does that mean the plodding, predictable ones were less entertaining?


ws: less entertaining, perhaps. but they were still mine, and there's something comforting in a predictable character once in a while.


dj: of course, though why you have to kill all the entertaining ones, like evan dhu, is beyond me. why not take any one of the bland lady-loves?


ws: I worked really hard on them, thank you very much! but that was the style of the time, and I didn't stick to stereotypes for every story, either.


dj: no, I guess they weren't all isabel veres or rose bradwardines or edith plantagenets. 


ws: are you picking on those girls? they each showed remarkable pluck in their respective stories. besides, I had catherine seyton, the lady augusta, di vernon, flora mac-ivor... well, okay, maybe flora's a little stereotypical. but the countess brenhilda, for crying out loud? every single one of them was a novel character!


dj: they were novel only because that's what you were writing. but you had me by augusta. spies; girls masquerading as boys; even a female crusader; all right. I'll hand it to you: your girls aren't all pale, beautiful, timid, and sweet. ...just most of them.


ws: do you have another question for me to answer, or are we going to sit here arguing about the stereotypical effeminacy of my female characters -- who are female, after all, and only did what was expected of them?


dj: fine, if you're going to get all huffy about it. (of course, you could always answer my question about why you had to kill off evan dhu.) which character do you identify with the most?


ws: you know, probably edward waverley. he's "warm in his feelings, wild and romantic in his ideas and in his taste of reading, with a strong disposition towards poetry." I actually based edward somewhat on myself; although I put a little of me in every hero, I think.


dj: the real question might be, but is there a little of every hero in you...what about in villains? did you base them exclusively off yourself? 


ws: har, har, no. although, clement cleveland [the pirate] reminds me of a darker, more mature, worldly-wise edward waverley, perhaps disillusioned with romance but still romantic at heart. obviously he has a baser beginning and a much more sinister past, but in clement's better moments the idealism of his character resembles that of edward, I think -- though not so much me.


dj: do you have any characters who were perhaps based off one another? like some of the ladies, maybe, who were exactly the same, but had different colored dresses...


ws: I can't quite hear you, and I don't think I want to. enough with the rising of your feministic hackles already. 


dj: some of my favorite characters from your books are actually minor ones -- like evan dhu -- whose part is minimal or whose character isn't extremely developed. were there any you ever wanted to focus more on, but the book's length or subject kept you from doing that?...other than the ladies, of course. you seem to prefer your women flat.


ws: will you get off it? good grief. ...well, I actually prefer leaving the historical details to the reader, letting them go to history themselves to find out what happened to james oig, or whoever they happen to be curious about. if the character isn't historical? it's a little sad, maybe, to think of a great story that I just can't tell, but usually I'm so focused on the main plot that I don't even think of it. I enjoyed tying the abbot and the monastery together, though, since they're at the same time in history; and people seemed to like that.


dj: I loved it, because it was like meeting old friends over again! the pale, limpid mary avenel might have actually improved with acquaintance...


ws: you just don't know when to stop, do you??


dj: mmm, actually, I'm thinking now is a good time.

thank you so much, sir walter, for joining us today and sharing your time and thoughts. it was quite enjoyable.

ws: I certainly enjoyed myself. ....mostly. except for the digs about my carefully crafted female char--


dj: ahem, and do come back tomorrow for ISWSW, day four: the poetry!    


20 August 2013

:: day two - books for the masses ::

hello, everyone! today is the second day of ISWSW, and we'll be focusing on the novels of sir walter scott (we covered the fact that his proliferation spilled into other genres, yesterday). I'll be punctuating facts with my opinions {in braces}, and sometimes skipping the facts altogether. let us begin!

{his five best-known novels}


- ivanhoe (1819)

       the story of two rich girls -- one saxon, one jew -- and a disinherited knight whom both of them fall in love with; threads of chivalry, tournaments, death, love, evil schemes, and mercy vs. justice run throughout. lots of gallantry and lots of knights, for those of you susceptible to iron regimentals. click for a sparknotes summary.

- waverley (1814)

       a young, romantic englishman is forced to choose sides between the reigning king and a claimant to the throne during the 1745 jacobite rebellion. betrayal and danger dog his steps... and flora and alice dog his thoughts; because it wouldn't be scott without a love interest. or two. also, evan dhu maccombich goes around being fantastic. scroll down here for a synopsis. 

- old mortality (1816)

       I've never read it, but I plan to, so you're on your own. try wikipedia.

- the bride of lammermoor (1819)

       having never read this one, but planning to also, I can only say I've heard it runs along the lines of "what if juliet had been forced to marry paris?" (I can also say I'm dying of curiosity about it.) try this summary.

- rob roy (1817)

       the swash-buckling-ish-but-not-really tale of frank osbaldistone, in conjunction with the 1715 uprising and rob roy (dingdingding!). sent in disgrace to his uncle's ancestral home, frank becomes interested in the fascinating di vernon (but of course), yet disturbed by his cousin/her tutor rashleigh, who has a beautiful voice but ulterior motives. frank ends up traveling through scotland, helped by a not-so-mysterious man who turns out to be The Rob Roy Himself, and there's lots of blood and claymore-waving with a very walter scott ending. I would suggest you just read it. 

these are certainly 5 well-known scotts (hahaha, that was almost a pun), but the heart of midlothian (1818) and guy mannering (1815) are pretty well-known, too, so don't take my word for The Definitive Five.


{something I find incredibly impressive about sir walter is how many books he published in so short a time. ivanhoe is arguably his best-known, period, and it went to the press in 1819 -- the same year as both the bride and montrose, which was only a year after midlothian. how many authors today... oh, I can't even compare. scott may be considered florid or wordy or fantastical by some people, but he was a good writer, and -- there, he's beat most modern authors hollow already.


just kidding. he was a good writer, he really invented historical fiction, and his works were produced in shockingly short amounts of time, yet they kept their quality. I think scott was a genius of the first water.}


{popularity}


waverley was an extremely popular book; by the time scott's "collected" works were available, it had sold over 50,000 copies {and for 183?, when you couldn't just one-click on amazon, that's pretty fantastic}. apparently, even the fortunes of nigel (1822 -- never heard of it? case in point) sold out its initial printing on publication day.*


his novels were translated into several other languages, including portuguese, greek, italian, and german {imagine the cost and the time it would take to translate and print and ship overseas all those books -- in the 19th century, no less! -- and they still sold}. 


scott said that, "no work of the imagination, proceeding from the mere consideration of a certain sum of copy-money, ever did, or ever will succeed."** {I love him for this. how many serieses have you thought you'd love -- "the first book was sooooooo goooood!!" -- and you love the second, and perhaps the third, all for the first's sake; but by the time the fourth and the fifth come along, like clockwork, the plot/character/belief-suspension is wearing thin, and you donate 'em all to the library in disgust? I hate it when that happens. sometimes you can even tell by #2. "crap, now it's just the royalties keeping this game going." so I love how scott recognized that money can't keep a writer producing well, and as far as I can see, he produced to produce, not to become rich and famous (though he did become rich, and then rich and famous, and then famous and bankrupt, when you could technically say he 'wrote for money' since he was writing to pay off his debts. but that's beside the point). when you finally come across an author whose books seem untainted by mercenary speculations, you know those are books to treasure (I'm thinking, like, trenton lee stewart, jeanne birdsall, elizabeth enright...). sir walter scott wrote 20+ of those treasures.}


fun activity of the day: see if you can name all of scott's works... in 10 minutes.


stuart kelly said of scott that, "he is not just still readable, he is enjoyable and even breath-catching, but you will need to learn to love a certain slowness." {this is a perfect encapsulation of scott's style -- what makes him difficult, but also what makes him brilliant.} 


well, what are you waiting for? go read redgauntlet!


footnotes/sources:

* stuart kelly, "walter scott, the original number one." <www.bookforum.com/inprint/018_02/7783>. accessed 14 august 2013.
** sam mckinstry and marie fletcher, "the personal account books of sir walter scott." <accountingin.com...>, referencing w. scott's biography. accessed 14 august 2013.     

    

19 August 2013

:: ISWSW, day one!!! ::

today is the first day of ISWSW, and I am so excited. because I get to talk about sir walter scott for a very long time, both of which things I love (sir walter and talking). 

and in case you've forgotten, ISWSW stands for international sir walter scott week. try to keep it in mind, since acronyms are useless if you have to literally spell them out every time (thanks).


- - - - -


first things first; let's get introduced.


walter scott was born august 15th, 1771, in edinburgh, scotland. as a child, he lived with his paternal grandparents, where his aunt jenny sparked his interest in old scottish legends and the oral storytelling traditions of the scottish border. scott went to the university of edinburgh and trained to be a lawyer; but by age 25 he was translating others' books, and by age 32 he was publishing his own: the minstrelsy of the scottish border was the first walter scott book to be in print.

scott's first novel, waverley, was published in 1814, and, of course, the rest is history. he wrote constantly over the next 15 years, with varying degrees of success, but ever-increasing popularity -- despite the fact that the books were published anonymously. [this is an interesting article about his efforts to stay unknown.] since the general public looked rather askance at novels (epic poetry was the 'higher form' of writing), scott didn't acknowledge his authorship until 1827. he probably feared damaging his rep as a poet (he was offered poet laureate in 1813!) ...although he was willing to meet the future george IV when his highness requested dinner with the famous "author of waverley". aaaand I think I'd do the same thing in his position.


in september of 1797, scott went on a trip to the lake district with some friends, where he was introduced to charlotte carpenter, a french orphan with rather stable financial circumstances. he proposed. she accepted. they got married. it actually was about that fast -- their wedding was december 24th, 1797; but they stayed (happily) married until her death in 1826, which is more than some people can say. (here are some letters from her, to him, during their engagement. d'aww!)


how did scott get the 'sir' appendage? in 1818, he obtained royal permission to search for the long-lost, legendary scottish crown jewels. scott and a small group of men discovered the "honours of scotland" deep in edinburgh castle, and in gratitude for this fantastic feat, the prince regent (aforementioned george) granted him the title of baronet (insert scarlet pimpernel reference here). whether the other men were remembered at all, I have no idea, since everyone else apparently forgot them.


sir walter scott died on september 21, 1832, deeply in debt, at his home abbotsford. his ever-popular books sold so well, though, that after his death the debts were all discharged. (yay for fans.)


:: a much more informative, but much less fun biography is over at the literature network's sir ws page. but don't say I didn't warn you. ::


- - - - -


fun extras:

- the edinburgh sir walter scott club is all about educating the masses in scott lore.
- "the erl-king" is a poem translated by scott. as the directions intimate, it's to be read "by a candle long in the snuff". probably in a hollow voice, too.
- he designed his own tartan pattern.
- this article points out (among other things) the slightly erroneous nature of some of scott's titles. but for what do we have neighbors, if not to make sport of them in our turn?

15 August 2013

:: gentlemen! this is a very. big. day! ::

a very, very big day.

it's the birthday of an amazing person, and I think we should all celebrate.


haappy BIRTHday TO youuuuu

haaappy BIRTHday TO youuuuu
haappy BIRTHday DEAR sir WALTER sco-o-o-ott [you can make it fit, be a sport]
HAAAPPY BIRTHDAY TOOOO YOUUUUUU!!!

cha cha cha. 


and many moooooore, of course. 


YES, today! is the 242nd birthday of sir walter scott! the author of waverley, ivanhoe, and the heart of midlothian! *lots of cheering and clapping*


being his birthday, I have an announcement to make. *more cheering and clapping, hopefully* 

I was sick last week (not the announcement), so I had no time to prepare anything (not the announcement, either), so this upcoming event will be one week late (not the freaking announcement). this upcoming week -- august 19-23 -- I hereby proclaim to be National Sir Walter Scott Week, and attendance is mandatory. ...make that International SWSW. the more the merrier, I always say. 

by next friday, you'll probably know more about this awesome dude than you ever really wanted to know, but it'll be fun, I promise you!


for me, anyway. >:)



13 August 2013

:: today's nugget of wisdom ::

in fact, there’s nothing that keeps its youth, 
so far as I know, but a tree and truth. 
(this is a moral that runs at large. 
take it. you’re welcome. no extra charge.) 

- the wonderful one-hoss shay 

(oliver wendell holmes)

06 August 2013

:: a passage discussion - in which I discuss a passage ::

you know the code that every kid thinks he came up with, and then discovers how, actually, everyone else thought of it, too -- "a=1, b=2," and so forth? well, I think it was originally shakespeare who came up with that, but he wasn't sure it would work. "2b, or not?... 2b... *frustrated sigh* that is the question." 
     all right. haha. probably, though, everyone who natively speaks english – and a few who don’t – would recognize shakespeare's most famous soliloquy’s famous opening words.
     go on. guess. 
     oh right. you’re a literature nut, too.

     today I’m going to air my doctorate in shakespeare (hahahaha‼ that made me laugh really hard‼!). honestly, I could easily come out of this looking dumb and painfully obvious. but it’s shakespeare, peoples, and it’s hamlet, so I think it’s worth it. nor am I going to point out his amazingness (we must be subtle about these things). 

to be or not to be, that is the question…

     *if you really don’t know the story of hamlet, prince of denmark, shame on you should go read it. if that just isn’t possible (i.e. you are a blind, deaf, mute person) you probably won't get it. oh well.* 

     at this point in the play, hamlet is debating -- die, or live? he asks, “whether ‘tis nobler in the mind, to suffer” or “to take arms against a sea of troubles”; in other words, is it better  -- basically -- to writhe through life in torment under the fusillage of troubles it showers on you, or -- basically -- to kill yourself in and because of those troubles?

    he first decides it would be better to die, to just forego his tribulations and end it all. death is nothing but sleep – “and by ‘a sleep’ to say we end the heartache and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to”. when we die, he says, we merely rest in peace, unbeset by those “thousand natural shocks” that all people commonly bear. isn’t that the perfect solution, then -- the “consummation devoutly to be wish’d”? -- but wait, there’s more!
     *aside! (<theater pun, hahaha! ahem.) hamlet -- if you have ever, are, or will read(ing) the play --, prince of denmark, is a serious recapitulator. he decides. he rethinks. he changes his mind. it’s kind of his downfall, I guess, b…ut this isn’t about the play or even hamlet himself, and I’m getting kind of off-track.*
     “To die, to sleep,” he repeats. it strikes him differently this time. “To sleep – perchance to dream!” aye. there’s the rub. if the allegory is continued, sleep contains dreams; nightmares. this gives him pause. is it wise to die, to go into the unknown? 
     men choose to live long for even small material reward -- “the respect that makes calamity of so long life” -- because who would want to live and suffer so much (here follows a long list of bad things you could encounter in life: aging, 'thralldom', humiliation, rejection, etc. etc.) for nothing? “Who would fardels bear” (fardel: burden, load) “to grunt and sweat under a weary life…?” -- oh, don’t you just love the words? don’t you feel like you’re sweaty and exhausted from a hard day’s work just reading it? -- and he’s right. if life is nothing but toil, why not quit…
     “…but that the dread of something after death”. 
     the truth is, we don’t know what happens when we die.
     take that back. that’s not really the truth. being a christian, I do know what happens when we die, and if you’re curious what I believe, I am more than happy to tell you. but here, it’s hamlet who doesn’t know where we go when we die, and he’s afraid. you can go to Death, “that undiscovered country”, but you can’t return. ((vocabulary enrichment time‼ go look up ‘bourn’ if you don’t already know what it means. 15 my-vocab-rocks points for you! yes, this means you should have the soliloquy open next to you, reading this and that parallel-ly.)) 
      this dilemma, namely ‘live in toil and trouble fire burn and cauldron bubble’ vs. ‘die uncertain of what happens next’, “puzzles the will”; it’s confusing; you aren’t sure what you want to do. and often, he (perhaps ruefully?) states, this confusedness makes us rather live with the known than go to the unknown: “makes us rather bear those ills we have, than fly to others that we know not of.”
      he knows he’s an over-thinker. he suspects himself of cowardice; with his rethinking, second-guessing, and back-pedaling he's convinced himself to live. disgustedly, he says, “Thus” – all this ridiculous, cross-purposed thinking – “conscience does make cowards of us all”. 
      I’ll sum up what he ends with. we are so scared of what comes after death that we convince ourselves to live and don’t do what we are supposed to do: make up our mind and follow it, pick decisively and emphatically. in this sickly way, we miss opportunities … becoming dull, sedentary beings who can’t even act.
      now I’ll let hamlet finish. ((…and thanks for reading!)) 

Thus, conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus, the native hue of resolution 
Is sicklied o’er with a pale cast of thought;
And enterprises of great pith* and moment, 
With this regard, their currents turn awry
And lose the name of action.


*I’ve also heard ‘pitch’. but my edition says ‘pith’. so that’s what I’m going with.   

03 August 2013

:: how to expand your vocabulary ::

how? read this! :D

hyaline: polished; diaphanous 
     adj., from greek: hyalinos - 'of glass'

pronounced: (hi-uh-leen) or (hi-uh-lin)


“Sunday at noon through hyaline thin air, Sees down the street, And in the camera of my eye depicts, Row-houses and row-lives Glass after glass, door after door the same.” 

     - karl shapiro