Weekly Response Four

“According to Protestant ideology, the Devil, the Pope, and the Turk all desired to ‘convert’ good Protestant souls to a state of damnation, and their desire to do so was frequently disguised as a sexual/sensual temptation of virtue, accompanied by a wrathful passion for power.”

-         Turning Turk in Othello: The Conversion and Damnation of the Moor – Daniel Vitkus page 145

IAGO: “Faith, he to-night hath boarded a land carack:
If it prove lawful prize, he's made for ever.
CASSIO: “I do not understand.”
IAGO: “He's married.”

-         Othello (1.2.50-53)

OTHELLO: “Come, 
My dear love
The purchase made, the fruits are to ensue: 
The profit's yet to come 'tween me and you. 
Good night.

-         Othello (2.3.8-11)

Question: Does the fact that those of color are stereotyped to be sexual deviants play into this Protestant ideology?

In accordance to many religions, sexual activity is considered sin, especially outside of marriage. In America, those of color have always been seen as sexual beings, more so than Caucasians. In Othello, and this is addressed in last week’s reading of Michael Neill’s Race, Adultery, and the Hideous in Othello, the bed plays an important role and almost becomes its own character. The consummation of Othello’s and Desdemona’s marriage is something seen as sinful, although they are married. This whole thing causes me to wonder whether there is an association between the stereotype of colored people and sex and the way Caucasians have viewed sinful actions.

Weekly Response Three

“As a disabling virus within literary discourse, Africanism has become, in the Eurocentric tradition that American education favors, both a way of talking about and a way of policing matters of class, sexual license, and repression, formations and exercises of power, and meditations on ethics and accountability. Through the simple expedient of demonizing and reifying the range of color on a palette, American Africanism makes it possible to historicize and render timeless.”

-         Literary Theory page 1007

RODERIGO: “What a full fortune does the thick-lips owe

If he can carry’t thus!”

-         Othello (1.1.62-63)

IAGO: “Even now, now, very now, an old black ram

Is tupping your white ewe. Arise, arise;

Awake the snorting citizens with the bell,

Or else the devil will make a grandsire of you.

Arise I say!”

-         Othello (1.1.85-89)

IAGO: “I am one, sir, that comes to tell you your daughter

and the Moor are making the beast with two backs.”

-         Othello (1.1.112-113)

Question: How did it come to be that the color black is generally associated with evil and white with purity and all that is good? Do the racial implications affect those associations or was this made with no connection to the different races?

Although through typical Elizabethan literature African Americans or those of color are portrayed as evil, Shakespeare goes against that norm and casts Othello, the man of color, as the hero. Othello is a man of nobility, honesty, and trust.  Therefore, Iago, a white male working for Othello, is able to deceive Othello and drive him mad.

There is no doubt that Iago is portrayed as a man who reaches the peak of evil doings. His manipulation and deceitful ways are constantly working to get him where he wants to be.  In Elizabethan writing, these characteristics would typically be displayed on a man of color. Is Shakespeare trying to be purposelessly ironic or make a political statement?

Weekly Response Two

“The passing from excessive praise to excessive invective is characteristic, and the change from the one to the other is perfectly legitimate.  Praise and abuse are, so to speak, the two sides of the same coin.  If the right side is praise, the wrong side is abuse, and vice versa.”

-         Literary Theory page 690

IAGO: “Even now, now, very now, an old black ram

Is tupping your white ewe. Arise, arise;

Awake the snorting citizens with the bell,

Or else the devil will make a grandsire of you.

Arise I say!”

-         Othello (1.1.85-89)

IAGO: “Nay, but he prated

And spoke such scurvy and provoking terms

Against your honor

That, with the little godliness I have

I did full hard forbear him.”

-         Othello (1.2.7-11)

Question: Is this two sided coin, the continual change between praise and insult, always necessary in order to get where one wants to be? Can it truly be called legitimate to change from one to the other with no qualms?

The first of my quotes from Shakespeare’s Othello are said by the character Iago, the first quote speaking to Brabantio about Othello and the second speaking to Othello himself. Iago switches so easily from speaking poorly about Othello, calling him “an old black ram,” in reference to his race, to speaking to him as if they were best friends.

It’s a known fact that nearly everyone does this. People today are either naturally two-faced or just easily gain this trait through interaction with modern-day society. Either way, I think it’s despicable. Yes, Iago is the “villain” through Othello, but this isn’t a characteristic strictly pertaining to villains. Literary Theory: an Anthology calls this change “perfectly legitimate,” and thinking about it causes me to realize just how “legitimate” it has become in today’s society, and it actually disgusts me.

I see no reason for human beings not to act merely civil with those they do not like; there’s no reason to praise them to their face and then turn around and throw every nasty insult at them the moment they turn their back. 

Weekly Response One

“The manipulation of representational devices may create a semblance of reality and allow one to have the impression of gazing through glass, but it is the devices alone that produce that impression, and they alone are what makes literature literary.”

-         Literary Theory page 3

“While practical speech facilitates access to information by making language as transparent as possible, poetic speech contorts and roughens up ordinary language and submits it to what Roman Jakobson called ‘organized violence,’ and it is this roughening up of ordinary language into tortuous ‘formed speech’ that makes poetry poetry rather than a weather report.”

-         Literary Theory page 4

“Let me not to the marriage of true minds

Admit impediments. Love is not love

Which alters when alteration finds,

Or bends with the remover to remove:

O no! It is an ever-fixed mark

That looks on tempests and is never shaken;”

-      Let Me Not to the Marriage of True Minds

By William Shakespeare

Question: How exactly can one determine the true meaning of a poem, its point and purpose, if the language is so "roughened" up? Intentional and affective fallacies address this, but whose place is it to say that the author's and readers' personal interpretations are any less valid? Yes, I understand that the way literary text works holds significance in making “literature literary,” but I believe that the author and the readers have a part in that as well.

Shakespeare utilizes his ability to roughen up ordinary language when he says “Love is not love which alters when alteration finds, or bends with the removers to remove…” In relation to the Literary Theory quote, a weather report would have read something along the lines of “Love does not change when the situation calls for it or leave.”  The way Shakespeare uses words allows a picture to be painted, but who can say that the picture is the same for every reader, or holds the same amount of power or significance?

Furthermore, I believe that understanding the period of time of a piece of literature or biographical information of the author adds additional significance to a piece.  Each reader feels differently about historical time periods, personality aspects, etc., that are brought to light when consideration is put towards not only the literary features of a piece, but the personal aspects of the person who created it.