I don’t know if I can call myself a teacher yet. Well, a teacher is a broad term anyway. As learning can be found anywhere, so can teachers be right? Well, as of now I am training through means of undergraduate studies in order to become a professional teacher someday. I am actually pretty much confident I’ll become an English teacher somewhere in the near future. I can practically see it now. I guess this is what other people call “living the dream.” Yes, it is my dream to become a teacher. I always have since I was very young. The difference would be I used to want becoming a Mathematics teacher. Until recently, though not that recent, I developed this passion for literature and reading combined with the passion for teaching that grew in me through time. Then there we have it: an English teacher in the making.
I actually had lots of teaching experiences before (many of us had). I have had classmates and friends ask me to teach or help them with their studies. In my third year in high school, I had a consistent Math session with a friend Sheilla at Dunkin’ Donuts. It was more of a group study really though we get to teach each other every now and then. In my fourth year I had a larger group. We were four, and we always went to the library or canteen to do our homework together. From time to time I get to teach them some Math. We also review together which would suggest that we teach one another. When I was younger I always held ‘classes.’ I’m sure you’ve heard of “bahay-bahayan?” Well, our version of it is teacher-teacher-an. After I stopped playing it (which I did for many years) my sisters did the same. My youngest sibling also has the desire to become the teacher and she continues the ‘legacy’ we’ve made though not so much anymore nowadays. (I’m guessing the fact that we are now leaving in a condominium comprising of teachers had something to do with it.) It’s funny to think that in all of those games we sisters were always the teachers. It was also through those games that I acquired of a pen name—Jenny Alvarez—which I still keep. Now why am I saying all of these? Reminiscing all of these teaching moments allows me to realize how this want have developed in me.
Even though I’m just a sophomore now and am still technically far from becoming a professional teacher, I can already testify that I am dedicated to this profession. I want this so much I am willing to give my all to hone my skills and just grow in it. I’d like to become the teacher I’ve always loved. A teacher who is caring and passionate about her students, mastery of her skills, her profession and developing in it: this is the English teacher I’d want to be. All these may sound generic but uhm I know that reality would always strike that not all teachers-to-be are teacher-aspirants. Not all have their heart in it, or at least not yet. It’s not that I’d like to segregate myself from them but I’d like to say that I feel happy for I know that this is where I belong.
I plan to be a teacher and I plan to give my best and exert much effort in this. And I realize, I have to grow first as a student for every good leader is a first a good follower. I am committed to this and if it were for no one else, I’d willingly do it for myself.
Monday, November 23, 2009
On Hercules’ Pre-History
Early Saturday morning and I was frantic from the moment I got out of bed. It was thirty-six minutes past seven and I had so much to do. I needed to be in school before 10am and I had my rehearsals at 3pm in my mind. My things weren’t fixed yet, I haven’t taken a bath, I haven’t had my devotions and I was running out of time. I wasn’t able to take a bath right away though, for my father was washing the dogs. I prepared my bag instead. Time was still against me though, I was ready by 9am and travel usually took an hour and a half. That morning, it did take that long for me to get to school. The AS lobby clock read 10:37 and I was late.
I went to U.P. Diliman’s Ma Wilfrido Guerrero theatre that morning to watch a play entitled “Amphitryon.” I’ll be honest...when I heard of the play’s title, I initially thought Greek. It did sound Greek-y and it was. The stage wasn’t exactly the typical Grecian setting but all the elements of a Greek play was there (it’s not technically Greek of course, but Greece was definitely the setting, or at least the inspiration...I don’t have all the details so I’m not exactly certain). There were the gods playing a part, the woman element, and the male hero. The adaptation though was far from Greek, it was a hundred percent Pinoy theatre. Of course, the original script was already translated and elements were added as the writer saw fit. All in all, the play seemed to sell to the Filipino audience... It was cool.
When I came to the theatre, Amphitryon was already saying goodbye to his wife. I was able to start that scene. I could tell because he just ushered his wife to the bed. I know that I missed some parts but I was able to catch up. That is the beauty of some plays (and movies)—you are able to catch up anyway. Though I think I must clarify that beginnings are important to me. I always feel that I’ve missed a lot. Other characters were soon introduced: Soshas and Charice. They were this couple, servants to Amphitryon and his wife, respectively. The plot soon moved on to Amphitryon winning the battle he was sent to. When he came back to his palace though, the mystery of another Amphitryon and Soshas shattered the happily married couple’s life. In the later part of the play, it is explained that Jove posted himself as an Amphityron. Ha, Zeus. He always comes down in order to satisfy his desires of various women.
It’s funny, you could tell who the real Amphitryon was even when the characters were all in a blur. Knowing a character, and understanding his persona from the start (I believe that this skill is developed through exposure to literature) gave someone the advantage to tell who’s who, what’s what, and which is which even before the author/writer reveals these things. It defeats the element of mystery most of the times though. Well, that’s for differentiating writers who can take hold of his audience’ attention ‘til the end from those who can’t. Then yes, Jove finally gave up his love to return Amphityron’s wife to his arms. He gave them Hercules as a gift. That was quite unfair though, mostly on Amphitryon’s part since Zeus was still father to the boy. Hercules was a god, not exactly a man-gift. I hated how Alchime didn’t recognize his own husband. From the start ‘til the end, she was at a total lost! What a pity. Well anyway, so much for that.
I liked how the writer incorporated comedy into the play. It’s not exactly funny though how the play made use of foul language and physical abuse as elements. I mean, it could have been humour without the explicitness (forgive the term...). They were able to make use of music, familiar lines, code-switching, and choreography anyway. They were good laughs too. Plus, Soshas and Charice were good characters. All in all, the play was a good comedy, both in technical and modern terms. Although I must admit that I didn’t exactly get the message of the play. Or at least, in my opinion, it would have been better if Alchime made her way out on her own, not like how everything was done for her. She was too much of a weak character to be Amphitryon’s wife. That turned out to be useful though in displaying Amphitryon’s good qualities. So I guess it’s all a good mix. There was the husband Amphitryon, the traditional woman Alchime, the comics from both sides (and interconnected, which means they could be classified as one element-slash-ingredient) Soshas and Charice, the hard Soshas impersonator (a contrast to Soshas’ comic), and the god Jove. It’s a perfect blend. I might not have enjoyed it to the point of standing-ovation but I’ll say that it was a good play.
I went to U.P. Diliman’s Ma Wilfrido Guerrero theatre that morning to watch a play entitled “Amphitryon.” I’ll be honest...when I heard of the play’s title, I initially thought Greek. It did sound Greek-y and it was. The stage wasn’t exactly the typical Grecian setting but all the elements of a Greek play was there (it’s not technically Greek of course, but Greece was definitely the setting, or at least the inspiration...I don’t have all the details so I’m not exactly certain). There were the gods playing a part, the woman element, and the male hero. The adaptation though was far from Greek, it was a hundred percent Pinoy theatre. Of course, the original script was already translated and elements were added as the writer saw fit. All in all, the play seemed to sell to the Filipino audience... It was cool.
When I came to the theatre, Amphitryon was already saying goodbye to his wife. I was able to start that scene. I could tell because he just ushered his wife to the bed. I know that I missed some parts but I was able to catch up. That is the beauty of some plays (and movies)—you are able to catch up anyway. Though I think I must clarify that beginnings are important to me. I always feel that I’ve missed a lot. Other characters were soon introduced: Soshas and Charice. They were this couple, servants to Amphitryon and his wife, respectively. The plot soon moved on to Amphitryon winning the battle he was sent to. When he came back to his palace though, the mystery of another Amphitryon and Soshas shattered the happily married couple’s life. In the later part of the play, it is explained that Jove posted himself as an Amphityron. Ha, Zeus. He always comes down in order to satisfy his desires of various women.
It’s funny, you could tell who the real Amphitryon was even when the characters were all in a blur. Knowing a character, and understanding his persona from the start (I believe that this skill is developed through exposure to literature) gave someone the advantage to tell who’s who, what’s what, and which is which even before the author/writer reveals these things. It defeats the element of mystery most of the times though. Well, that’s for differentiating writers who can take hold of his audience’ attention ‘til the end from those who can’t. Then yes, Jove finally gave up his love to return Amphityron’s wife to his arms. He gave them Hercules as a gift. That was quite unfair though, mostly on Amphitryon’s part since Zeus was still father to the boy. Hercules was a god, not exactly a man-gift. I hated how Alchime didn’t recognize his own husband. From the start ‘til the end, she was at a total lost! What a pity. Well anyway, so much for that.
I liked how the writer incorporated comedy into the play. It’s not exactly funny though how the play made use of foul language and physical abuse as elements. I mean, it could have been humour without the explicitness (forgive the term...). They were able to make use of music, familiar lines, code-switching, and choreography anyway. They were good laughs too. Plus, Soshas and Charice were good characters. All in all, the play was a good comedy, both in technical and modern terms. Although I must admit that I didn’t exactly get the message of the play. Or at least, in my opinion, it would have been better if Alchime made her way out on her own, not like how everything was done for her. She was too much of a weak character to be Amphitryon’s wife. That turned out to be useful though in displaying Amphitryon’s good qualities. So I guess it’s all a good mix. There was the husband Amphitryon, the traditional woman Alchime, the comics from both sides (and interconnected, which means they could be classified as one element-slash-ingredient) Soshas and Charice, the hard Soshas impersonator (a contrast to Soshas’ comic), and the god Jove. It’s a perfect blend. I might not have enjoyed it to the point of standing-ovation but I’ll say that it was a good play.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
On Expressing One’s Thoughts
To be perfectly frank, I am not afraid of death. One might even say I’m quite thrilled by the thought of it. I’m not trying to be morbid or anything, but what excites me really is what awaits me after death.
I am a Christian and I believe in life after death. Even more, I do believe that I am destined to go to heaven after I die. I’ve gone through moments of doubt times before but now... well, death doesn’t give a scare. I know where I am and I recognize the consequences of my actions. As long as I am breathing, I try to correct my mistakes or at the very least reconcile with those I may have offended.
Montaigne’s essay, “To Philosophize is to Learn How to Die,” spoke to me as if it was a personal letter. It spoke of truths, facts of life, things I believe in, and thoughts I go against. Of any way, it told hard truths which are practically inevitable but are seldom heard. Philosophers always catch my attention. They have this certain aura about them, best expressed in writing. I would like to call my self both a writer and philosopher but I am not in the near end of either one. If a philosopher philosophizes about life and what is not life, then I’m far from being one. Death doesn’t occur to me unless an external force incurs such matter. I haven’t experienced death of another that greatly affected me, and I’m in no little way paranoid of it. I would have to say I don’t think of such matter as often as Montaigne or any other recognized philosopher would. What I know though is that I have my own way of thinking and matters I concern myself with that others might not find interesting.
I may not be a philosopher found on a bookshelf corner and I may be different, but as any other intellect would say: I am wearing the same skin the walkers of this planet do.
I am a Christian and I believe in life after death. Even more, I do believe that I am destined to go to heaven after I die. I’ve gone through moments of doubt times before but now... well, death doesn’t give a scare. I know where I am and I recognize the consequences of my actions. As long as I am breathing, I try to correct my mistakes or at the very least reconcile with those I may have offended.
Montaigne’s essay, “To Philosophize is to Learn How to Die,” spoke to me as if it was a personal letter. It spoke of truths, facts of life, things I believe in, and thoughts I go against. Of any way, it told hard truths which are practically inevitable but are seldom heard. Philosophers always catch my attention. They have this certain aura about them, best expressed in writing. I would like to call my self both a writer and philosopher but I am not in the near end of either one. If a philosopher philosophizes about life and what is not life, then I’m far from being one. Death doesn’t occur to me unless an external force incurs such matter. I haven’t experienced death of another that greatly affected me, and I’m in no little way paranoid of it. I would have to say I don’t think of such matter as often as Montaigne or any other recognized philosopher would. What I know though is that I have my own way of thinking and matters I concern myself with that others might not find interesting.
I may not be a philosopher found on a bookshelf corner and I may be different, but as any other intellect would say: I am wearing the same skin the walkers of this planet do.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Not Again
When I saw Inferno on the course syllabus, I thought to myself, “Oh no, not again.” It’s prejudice of course and apparently, it did have a negative effect on how I treated the reading. Inferno was nothing new to me, even though I only took it up once; it was just last semester though. To stress my point, I didn’t finish reading the text anymore. I could give an excuse that I ran out of time (it’s true) but I do remember making a conscious decision of not doing so. I know it’s not something a student should confess but at least it’s honesty. And since I’m already giving myself out, I would confess something a student should. I enjoyed the discussion this time way more than in English12. Well, I can’t really tell...but I’m confident to say that it seemed more interesting this time around. Discussions required more thinking and I definitely admire the participation it needed. It wasn’t exactly the roomful of philosophers-slash-scientists seen in movies but at least it was something. I should be discussing about how I feel about the book though. I guess I could excuse myself by reasoning out that I’m still in the intro? Ha-ha. Moving on...
Dante’s version of hell required a little less philosophy since it already had its origins. I would have to say that all Dante had to do was put things together, using imagination and literature for spice. Of course, I am not belittling what Dante has gone through to come up with the “Comedia.” What he did required much effort, or at least experience. I think trying to clarify my point just made me lose it.
“Inferno” is all about meaning and symbolism, obviously. As much as it required careful consideration on the author’s part (although of course, I couldn’t actually tell since I haven’t spoken with Dante himself), as a reader and student I had to understand his viewpoint to appreciate what he wrote. Although I have more idea on what Dante probably wanted to tell his readers, I wouldn’t profess that I actually appreciate “Inferno” in an affective level yet I do appreciate his work as a literature. Am I being indecisive? Honestly, I cannot make up my mind. It’s not that I am not capable of doing such but a person can’t simply have one point nor one opinion on anything. At least, not I. Well, that’s literature for me. Fortunately, I can make a stand on other things. I guess it’s all about having an open mind.
Ah, open-mindedness...it’s not necessarily beneficial. With Dante, I have to keep in mind that this is a virtue necessary. See, I have to look at “Inferno” as a student, as a literary reader, and as a Christian. What am I to do? I have to read the book even though I don’t exactly want to. I think I need to breathe for a while.
Ay Dante, why ever did you write about hell? What was your point and what is your purpose for writing such? Do you have any idea how you torture me? I am here in front of the computer writing about your book because I’m required to. I don’t even know where to start. In all honesty, I can’t take other people’s word. I want to understand yours. I wouldn’t bother to take the time trying to find out though, although now it seems that I would, but no. It would take me years and I wouldn’t be able to say that I am right for your not here nor there in the future to tell me. Ugh, it’s too much pressure. I need to release myself from this.
I’ll make one statement.
I really hope and pray to God that I wouldn’t need to touch “Inferno” ever again.
Dante’s version of hell required a little less philosophy since it already had its origins. I would have to say that all Dante had to do was put things together, using imagination and literature for spice. Of course, I am not belittling what Dante has gone through to come up with the “Comedia.” What he did required much effort, or at least experience. I think trying to clarify my point just made me lose it.
“Inferno” is all about meaning and symbolism, obviously. As much as it required careful consideration on the author’s part (although of course, I couldn’t actually tell since I haven’t spoken with Dante himself), as a reader and student I had to understand his viewpoint to appreciate what he wrote. Although I have more idea on what Dante probably wanted to tell his readers, I wouldn’t profess that I actually appreciate “Inferno” in an affective level yet I do appreciate his work as a literature. Am I being indecisive? Honestly, I cannot make up my mind. It’s not that I am not capable of doing such but a person can’t simply have one point nor one opinion on anything. At least, not I. Well, that’s literature for me. Fortunately, I can make a stand on other things. I guess it’s all about having an open mind.
Ah, open-mindedness...it’s not necessarily beneficial. With Dante, I have to keep in mind that this is a virtue necessary. See, I have to look at “Inferno” as a student, as a literary reader, and as a Christian. What am I to do? I have to read the book even though I don’t exactly want to. I think I need to breathe for a while.
Ay Dante, why ever did you write about hell? What was your point and what is your purpose for writing such? Do you have any idea how you torture me? I am here in front of the computer writing about your book because I’m required to. I don’t even know where to start. In all honesty, I can’t take other people’s word. I want to understand yours. I wouldn’t bother to take the time trying to find out though, although now it seems that I would, but no. It would take me years and I wouldn’t be able to say that I am right for your not here nor there in the future to tell me. Ugh, it’s too much pressure. I need to release myself from this.
I’ll make one statement.
I really hope and pray to God that I wouldn’t need to touch “Inferno” ever again.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Horizons
I couldn’t finish”Les Misérables” even if I had too. Even the 600-paged abridged version takes me a while. Don’t get me wrong though. This book plus “To Kill a Mockingbird” was what got me into reading and the want to read made me take up English instead of Math. I finished the book when I was in fourth year high school in two months or so. It was the third novel I finished in my life. In first year college I was collecting novels and other literary articles. Now why am I telling this? It’s not completely irrelevant. I never liked reading tiny letters in many pages until I found out that it was worth it. I really liked the novel—it was very touching too. Aside from that, the book provides unfamiliar terms that helps me improve my vocabulary. Now on the book...
Prejudice is such a harsh reality. What you were will always haunt you one way or the other for the rest of your life. It is only in places where no one knows about your past will you be able to escape from these haunting. Sometimes we catch ourselves reliving the past that it’s hard to move on. Even if we won’t attach ourselves to it anymore, other people will. The worst comes in when this attachment prevents us from change. We want a better life, we want to be a better person, and we want a future! But no, these things will keep dragging us down until they leave us. It only leaves through forgiveness and forgetfulness. An all-aspect approach will be necessary. We need to forgive and forget, as well as others, and then we all move on towards the future.
I do not personally like Javert nor would I say that I dislike him. The feeling’s pretty neutral. He’s more like a figure of authority/power/force than a character taking role since he’s always the police present. It’s the consistency of him that makes him more of a character in the intellect than of the feel. For others, well, they all represented something but they played roles; though these roles were also as major and as important as Javert’s. It’s just that the other characters had shifts while Javert was just Javert until the end. No change. No budge. Just Javert. Victor Hugo was right when he called him a fanatic.
Between bitterness and bouncing off of it, the latter is obviously better. Bitterness creates characters such as the Thenardiérs. They fall and sink deeper every time. They sneer and scold and grow more deceptive each time. It’s not hate that you would feel for them and it’s hard to consider compassion. They’re too inconsiderate and selfish yet they could not help themselves. What kind of people are they? And yet they exist. These are the types of people who mock at society and scorn the government. They even jeer their benefactors. They are leeches who need to suck their own blood.
Cosette (the child) and Gavroche are two characters good enough for a Venn diagram. Both of them are born of the less privileged. One is very much loved; the other is not at all. Both of them believe that they are forgotten. Both of them have to work for a living, both because of the Thenardiér couple; the one in an inn while the other in the streets. They are both clothed in rags and sullen. Both of them were the least bitter. One had developed a fearful character while the other became bold. They were practically the same but their later opportunities were different. The former grew up to be a lady. The former died in battle. Both appreciated.
Is society really that unforgiving? Is society what creates these people? Yes it does play a great role but we ourselves play a greater role in shaping our future, even the present! Given the opportunity to do so, we must seize the chance to climb out of poverty in honesty so that it will all be worthwhile and last in the long run. It is a rare chance to meet this kind of people. Many stay put in were they are, whatever status that might be. The greatest of them all are those who rise from poverty into first class. Marius would have been a great candidate for he struggled much and succeeded much but there is one character that fared better than him: Jean Valjean.
His story is just fascinating and meaningful. How can an orphan move from being indifferent to bitter to generous to just to fatherly? He took his circumstances as they came but he used these to shape a future for him and those around him. Jean Valjean was a developing character and he was kept interesting ‘til the end. Even when he was not the focus, one would find him there, developing or in stagnancy for a while. He though kept moving on. He saw what he was and changed what he did not liked seeing. He was a Thenardiér who seized the opportunity, a Marius who excelled better, a Javert who had compassion, a Bienvenu in his own way. I can learn so much from this Jean’s character. I need to move on in life, bounce off bitterness, seize the opportunities, live in honesty, help others along the way, and much more see God through of it.
Prejudice is such a harsh reality. What you were will always haunt you one way or the other for the rest of your life. It is only in places where no one knows about your past will you be able to escape from these haunting. Sometimes we catch ourselves reliving the past that it’s hard to move on. Even if we won’t attach ourselves to it anymore, other people will. The worst comes in when this attachment prevents us from change. We want a better life, we want to be a better person, and we want a future! But no, these things will keep dragging us down until they leave us. It only leaves through forgiveness and forgetfulness. An all-aspect approach will be necessary. We need to forgive and forget, as well as others, and then we all move on towards the future.
I do not personally like Javert nor would I say that I dislike him. The feeling’s pretty neutral. He’s more like a figure of authority/power/force than a character taking role since he’s always the police present. It’s the consistency of him that makes him more of a character in the intellect than of the feel. For others, well, they all represented something but they played roles; though these roles were also as major and as important as Javert’s. It’s just that the other characters had shifts while Javert was just Javert until the end. No change. No budge. Just Javert. Victor Hugo was right when he called him a fanatic.
Between bitterness and bouncing off of it, the latter is obviously better. Bitterness creates characters such as the Thenardiérs. They fall and sink deeper every time. They sneer and scold and grow more deceptive each time. It’s not hate that you would feel for them and it’s hard to consider compassion. They’re too inconsiderate and selfish yet they could not help themselves. What kind of people are they? And yet they exist. These are the types of people who mock at society and scorn the government. They even jeer their benefactors. They are leeches who need to suck their own blood.
Cosette (the child) and Gavroche are two characters good enough for a Venn diagram. Both of them are born of the less privileged. One is very much loved; the other is not at all. Both of them believe that they are forgotten. Both of them have to work for a living, both because of the Thenardiér couple; the one in an inn while the other in the streets. They are both clothed in rags and sullen. Both of them were the least bitter. One had developed a fearful character while the other became bold. They were practically the same but their later opportunities were different. The former grew up to be a lady. The former died in battle. Both appreciated.
Is society really that unforgiving? Is society what creates these people? Yes it does play a great role but we ourselves play a greater role in shaping our future, even the present! Given the opportunity to do so, we must seize the chance to climb out of poverty in honesty so that it will all be worthwhile and last in the long run. It is a rare chance to meet this kind of people. Many stay put in were they are, whatever status that might be. The greatest of them all are those who rise from poverty into first class. Marius would have been a great candidate for he struggled much and succeeded much but there is one character that fared better than him: Jean Valjean.
His story is just fascinating and meaningful. How can an orphan move from being indifferent to bitter to generous to just to fatherly? He took his circumstances as they came but he used these to shape a future for him and those around him. Jean Valjean was a developing character and he was kept interesting ‘til the end. Even when he was not the focus, one would find him there, developing or in stagnancy for a while. He though kept moving on. He saw what he was and changed what he did not liked seeing. He was a Thenardiér who seized the opportunity, a Marius who excelled better, a Javert who had compassion, a Bienvenu in his own way. I can learn so much from this Jean’s character. I need to move on in life, bounce off bitterness, seize the opportunities, live in honesty, help others along the way, and much more see God through of it.
Comment on the Ditchley Portrait of Elizabeth I
The first thing that captures my eye in this image is Elizabeth's outfit. It makes her seem out of proportion. Well, there goes the fashion of her day. How the image is a portrait of a queen and one way or another it does reflect England in Elizabeth I's reign. In the background is the division of day and night. Technically, the sun rises from the east which makes the majority of visual arts place daylight on the right. Here, the darkness represents the right side. I wonder why. If I were to say that perhaps darkness ruled this era, it would make no sense. Unless of course it does with the painter who thought of such. It really is peculiar to find the clear sky on the left...
The next thing I'd like to take notice of is the "floor" she's stepping on. I can't ell if it's England, or Europe or anything but uhm I would say that the Queen, stepping on a piece of land signifies something. For one is power; another is authority. She is a ruler and she is above this land. It tells so much, although somehow in a negative way. A true ruler wold not step on his/her people. Although, when I think of it, evn God makes the earth His footstool. So I guess it justifies Elizabeth stepping upon her kingdom. But then again, it's always another case.
I wonder what the red spots are for. I take them as legends in a map, whatever those legends stand for. They could be marks of capitals, or battlegrounds...or something else. Well, whatever they are, they provide the conviction that Elizabeth is indeed sanding on a map, which brings us back to the preceding paragraph.
What about Elizabeth's outfit? Well...it's Victorian fashion obviously but what I'd like to take note of are the flowers and jewels all over her. They say that the leader represents the whole (or at least, in most cases). The reason why I'm saying this is because Elizabeth's dress-up could and would provide clues on how England was like. Surely a leader would reflect his/her people.
The flowers. Of course, it would sound cheesy if I would say that the people then were flowery. Sadly enough, I will go with that phrase. It's true anyway. The literature and other forms of text during the Elizabethan period did truly "flower" or bloom. Beyond euphemism, there sprouted great writers who truly were creative, especially when it came to the language of the arts (and vice versa). The English language itself bloomed and developed in this era.
The jewels. Well, obviously England was rich in those times. Otherwise, why call it the Golden Age? England flourished in pragmatically all areas. This of course brought the land to a higher success and level of prosperity. Of course, it looked good on them as the jewels finely suited the queen. What's with the black ring on her left hand's pinky? Well, I honestly would like to have a smart remark on it. Unfortunately, I have none. I could come up with something but I'd rather not try. If it counts, I also wanted to say something about the fans in her ands. It's actually the first I noticed really. I mean, who needs two fans at the same time? For a mere portrait? Hmm... The other one is even tied up to her waist. Come'on, England does not have that hot of a weather, is a fan really necessary? I mean, practically... I guess it's all about high fashion. She is royalty after all.
Look at her crown. I noiced that kings and queens when they are delegated wear the same crown but everything else after this glorious ceremony, they don't wear it anymore. Rarely do they come to it. Royalty either comes up with their own crown or wear none at all. What's up with that?
Lastly comes the board behind her. I think it's a decree or something. The law perhaps. But if it is in fact the law, why put it behind? So, the king-slash-queen is the law now? It is true after all. At least, in her time it was. The ruler always had the last say Only is it now is the queen obsolete, everything is left to the parliament and the prime minister. The queen is now just an accessory (for lack of a better term, I'll use that). It's true anyway. Like a professor once said to his class: "You don't go to England to see the prime minister, you'd like to see the queen!" Well, he's almost perfectly right ha-ha.
The next thing I'd like to take notice of is the "floor" she's stepping on. I can't ell if it's England, or Europe or anything but uhm I would say that the Queen, stepping on a piece of land signifies something. For one is power; another is authority. She is a ruler and she is above this land. It tells so much, although somehow in a negative way. A true ruler wold not step on his/her people. Although, when I think of it, evn God makes the earth His footstool. So I guess it justifies Elizabeth stepping upon her kingdom. But then again, it's always another case.
I wonder what the red spots are for. I take them as legends in a map, whatever those legends stand for. They could be marks of capitals, or battlegrounds...or something else. Well, whatever they are, they provide the conviction that Elizabeth is indeed sanding on a map, which brings us back to the preceding paragraph.
What about Elizabeth's outfit? Well...it's Victorian fashion obviously but what I'd like to take note of are the flowers and jewels all over her. They say that the leader represents the whole (or at least, in most cases). The reason why I'm saying this is because Elizabeth's dress-up could and would provide clues on how England was like. Surely a leader would reflect his/her people.
The flowers. Of course, it would sound cheesy if I would say that the people then were flowery. Sadly enough, I will go with that phrase. It's true anyway. The literature and other forms of text during the Elizabethan period did truly "flower" or bloom. Beyond euphemism, there sprouted great writers who truly were creative, especially when it came to the language of the arts (and vice versa). The English language itself bloomed and developed in this era.
The jewels. Well, obviously England was rich in those times. Otherwise, why call it the Golden Age? England flourished in pragmatically all areas. This of course brought the land to a higher success and level of prosperity. Of course, it looked good on them as the jewels finely suited the queen. What's with the black ring on her left hand's pinky? Well, I honestly would like to have a smart remark on it. Unfortunately, I have none. I could come up with something but I'd rather not try. If it counts, I also wanted to say something about the fans in her ands. It's actually the first I noticed really. I mean, who needs two fans at the same time? For a mere portrait? Hmm... The other one is even tied up to her waist. Come'on, England does not have that hot of a weather, is a fan really necessary? I mean, practically... I guess it's all about high fashion. She is royalty after all.
Look at her crown. I noiced that kings and queens when they are delegated wear the same crown but everything else after this glorious ceremony, they don't wear it anymore. Rarely do they come to it. Royalty either comes up with their own crown or wear none at all. What's up with that?
Lastly comes the board behind her. I think it's a decree or something. The law perhaps. But if it is in fact the law, why put it behind? So, the king-slash-queen is the law now? It is true after all. At least, in her time it was. The ruler always had the last say Only is it now is the queen obsolete, everything is left to the parliament and the prime minister. The queen is now just an accessory (for lack of a better term, I'll use that). It's true anyway. Like a professor once said to his class: "You don't go to England to see the prime minister, you'd like to see the queen!" Well, he's almost perfectly right ha-ha.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
One Word
Hope.
The task given to the class was to choose a word and cite instances, or rather explain, how the word could serve as a ray of sunshine or as a lethal arrow. The word I chose is cited above. One look at it usually instills a positive outlook upon it. Such a term though affects people differently. Everything serves different meanings to different people. This particular word leans more on to the insides rather than the intellect--or at least, at most cases.
Hope is something that builds up people when they are down but it strikes two ways. It all depends on how the term came about to what situation, and to whom. Take the ill for example. The hope of being healthy again plays a big role. Not only does it put a smile on the sick, but also to those who are concerned for that person, and the doctor/s who provide medication. For those who won't heal anymore, on the other hand, the mention of the term 'hope' brings pain. There was this one person who maintained a positive outlook in life even during her bed-ridden days. Many times she would write down her hopes and dreams in a journal and it hurt her so much for she knew that those things won't come to pass anymore. The hopes that others had and the future that lay ahead of them, the things that she once held were nowhere to be found. The pages she have written also brought pain to the people around her but those same words of hope and dreams brought life to others. There are lots of examples of such.
Hope is a big word when one takes a deep look into it. For one, what is hope to a person and what is that hope needed for? There are hopes to live and bring life to others. For some, there is hope to take revenge, to bring pain to others. Even more, there is the hope of death(for others what awaits them after), the only escape from this world. The hope for one may be essentially different to another.
The term 'hope' may mean little or a lot to the people walking this earth but it all comes to one point. It is inevitable that the future--hope of what lies ahead, or what may happen--is what keeps people to go on. Hope can take shapes and strike in many ways but it will always be what it is. The one word that keeps you and I to walk on.
The task given to the class was to choose a word and cite instances, or rather explain, how the word could serve as a ray of sunshine or as a lethal arrow. The word I chose is cited above. One look at it usually instills a positive outlook upon it. Such a term though affects people differently. Everything serves different meanings to different people. This particular word leans more on to the insides rather than the intellect--or at least, at most cases.
Hope is something that builds up people when they are down but it strikes two ways. It all depends on how the term came about to what situation, and to whom. Take the ill for example. The hope of being healthy again plays a big role. Not only does it put a smile on the sick, but also to those who are concerned for that person, and the doctor/s who provide medication. For those who won't heal anymore, on the other hand, the mention of the term 'hope' brings pain. There was this one person who maintained a positive outlook in life even during her bed-ridden days. Many times she would write down her hopes and dreams in a journal and it hurt her so much for she knew that those things won't come to pass anymore. The hopes that others had and the future that lay ahead of them, the things that she once held were nowhere to be found. The pages she have written also brought pain to the people around her but those same words of hope and dreams brought life to others. There are lots of examples of such.
Hope is a big word when one takes a deep look into it. For one, what is hope to a person and what is that hope needed for? There are hopes to live and bring life to others. For some, there is hope to take revenge, to bring pain to others. Even more, there is the hope of death(for others what awaits them after), the only escape from this world. The hope for one may be essentially different to another.
The term 'hope' may mean little or a lot to the people walking this earth but it all comes to one point. It is inevitable that the future--hope of what lies ahead, or what may happen--is what keeps people to go on. Hope can take shapes and strike in many ways but it will always be what it is. The one word that keeps you and I to walk on.
English Literature at its Peak
Wars, fights, controversies—these all roamed around mainland England. Not only did these political and religious tribulations put men’s lives on the line, it also put the arts into hiding so to speak. English Literature reached its peak during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen. This was the time when religious arguments were put aside through Puritanism, an agreement between the extremes of Catholicism and Protestantism. This gave way for the courts to take more notice in Literature.
It can be noted that even before the reign of Elizabeth I, performers of the arts already received recognition, even in the palace courts. History tells us that Henry VIII hired actors and playwrights for productions and presentations staged on the court. Outside the palace, literature was practically prominent among the nobilities. Even among the lower classes, a handful of plays were presented at inns and other public places. These though didn’t give much recognition to the literary, nor to Literature itself.
The people of those times of course cannot be considered apathetic towards Literary Arts, but far from that. It’s just that there was a need to pay attention to other things. It is well known that with Renaissance came along Reformation. This opened a lot of discussions, even fights. During the reign of Mary Tudor, wife of Philip II of Spain and a devout Catholic, there was public persecution of the Protestants. She is more popularly known as Bloody Mary, her having sentenced hundreds, even thousands, of the Non-Catholic faith killed. Subject matters like this gave the English less opportunity to pay heed to Literature.
Even when Literature is up on its feet, there were still arguments against play productions. For one thing, the Catholic Church didn’t really approve of these, and many of the English were Catholic. Plays started inside the church—the morality, mystery, and miracle plays which discussed Biblical principles—and when it got out, the themes became more and more secular and the language vulgar. All these may have stumbled the Literary Arts, but it was not put into silence. Its climax finally took place during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I.
Aside from settling religious and political issues that dug holes in Literature’s pathway, Elizabeth I also gave high favors to playwrights and actors. In films like “Elizabeth” and “Elizabeth, The Golden Age,” her palace is shown accommodating plays in its courts, along with dances and songs. In the film “Shakespeare in Love,” the actress playing her even said “They are played for me.” This tells us that the Literary Arts received might we say, full recognition among the English. From there on out prominent playwrights took into scene. In a turn of the sixteenth century, writers like Christopher Marlowe and William Shakespeare vigorously wrote to make their way into the lime light.
The 45 years reign of Queen Elizabeth I, the Golden Age of England, is also the Golden Age of English Literature. Now, it is called Elizabethan Literature, English Literature at its peak.
It can be noted that even before the reign of Elizabeth I, performers of the arts already received recognition, even in the palace courts. History tells us that Henry VIII hired actors and playwrights for productions and presentations staged on the court. Outside the palace, literature was practically prominent among the nobilities. Even among the lower classes, a handful of plays were presented at inns and other public places. These though didn’t give much recognition to the literary, nor to Literature itself.
The people of those times of course cannot be considered apathetic towards Literary Arts, but far from that. It’s just that there was a need to pay attention to other things. It is well known that with Renaissance came along Reformation. This opened a lot of discussions, even fights. During the reign of Mary Tudor, wife of Philip II of Spain and a devout Catholic, there was public persecution of the Protestants. She is more popularly known as Bloody Mary, her having sentenced hundreds, even thousands, of the Non-Catholic faith killed. Subject matters like this gave the English less opportunity to pay heed to Literature.
Even when Literature is up on its feet, there were still arguments against play productions. For one thing, the Catholic Church didn’t really approve of these, and many of the English were Catholic. Plays started inside the church—the morality, mystery, and miracle plays which discussed Biblical principles—and when it got out, the themes became more and more secular and the language vulgar. All these may have stumbled the Literary Arts, but it was not put into silence. Its climax finally took place during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I.
Aside from settling religious and political issues that dug holes in Literature’s pathway, Elizabeth I also gave high favors to playwrights and actors. In films like “Elizabeth” and “Elizabeth, The Golden Age,” her palace is shown accommodating plays in its courts, along with dances and songs. In the film “Shakespeare in Love,” the actress playing her even said “They are played for me.” This tells us that the Literary Arts received might we say, full recognition among the English. From there on out prominent playwrights took into scene. In a turn of the sixteenth century, writers like Christopher Marlowe and William Shakespeare vigorously wrote to make their way into the lime light.
The 45 years reign of Queen Elizabeth I, the Golden Age of England, is also the Golden Age of English Literature. Now, it is called Elizabethan Literature, English Literature at its peak.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)