Why Wasn't Crusoe Found Sooner?

While reading Robinson Crusoe a thought had occurred to me. Robinson became marooned when the trade ship that he had been riding in crashed. He then spent some very long time (I say this cause he lost track when he got sick) on that deserted island until he is accidentally discovered by another merchant ship. This made me ask why it took so long for him to be discovered. Didn’t Britain have a better system to look after their ships?

During the 17^th and most of the 18^th British commerce centered on the colonization for other states and countries. America is probably the biggest example of how the British conducted their colonization and how cruel it really was. Colonization was Britain’s biggest source of income since the British colonies provided new raw materials and new land to help strengthen the countries. This being the case one would think that the British would be highly interested in the only means of reaching the colonies… the ships. However I was quite surprised to find out that the British kept very loose tracks of the ships. However, looking at it more closely this fact might have been quite easily explained. Most people of the time, especially in Britain found these colonies to be a great way to make quick money. This fact, plus the fact that the new world had started to become more “civil” lead to a dramatic increase in people like Robinson Crusoe who decided that their fortunes lay within the colonies. Of course this also lead to an increase in the number of trade and merchant ship; almost to the point that all the ships could not be kept track of accurately. To put is simply there were just too many ships, going to too many different locations that it seems more logical that the British couldn’t keep accurate records; not that they didn’t.

See you around
Will

The Portrayals of Rochester from Wide Sargasso Sea and Jayne Eyre

Quite frankly I did not like Wide Sargasso Sea this does not mean that I didn’t think that it was a good book. Quite the contrary, I thought that it was extremely well written; I just hate being wrong. And Wide Sargasso Sea seems to have been written for the sole purpose of making me, and people like me, admit that we were wrong.

When we read Jane Eyre I saw Rochester as a man who had good intentions however he had made some mistakes by going off of the lies and deceit of his father and older brother. However after reading Wide Sargasso Sea I realized just how wrong my assumptions on Rochester’s character were. In Wide Sargasso Sea Rochester is portrayed as an overly pessimistic, weak willed individual who refused to see any views other than his own. Not to mention the scene with Amelie… yhea that’s not helping Rochester’s, “I’m the victim” story.

It wasn’t hard for Wide Sargasso Sea to get its point across since it seems like this book was written for the sole purpose of discrediting every single part of the story of Rochester’s past that is presented in Jane Eyre. And it does this very well. Wide Sargasso Sea uses subtle hints, multiple viewpoints, including Rochester himself, and even surrounding environments (look at how Rochester views Jamaica and how Antoinette viewed England) to hammer in it’s portrayal of Rochester into every one of its readers. This means that I have to admit that I am wrong (and I REALLY hate admitting this) and I owe Bertha an apology for believing the story of the man who was being accused for attempted adultery. Though in my defense he did do something heroic in the end.

Peace out

Will Pugh

The Comparisons Betiween Movies and Books

I want to start out by saying that I believe that it is pointless to try to compare two different forms of media that are based on one another, especially books to movies. Lets face it 9 times out of 10 the book is better than the movie ( the other 1 out of 10 being “how the Grinch Stole Christmas”) because books have one huge advantage over movies that every author uses though most of them don’t realize it. You can put down a book and come back to it later, this lets writers expand the story far more than a movie can, allowing them to insert subplots and further explain the situation that each character faces. A movie on the other hand is made to be completed in one sitting. This means that moviemakers have to keep the audience entertained for the entire movie. This gives a limit of time constraint since, no matter how good the movie is people get bored doing nothing for eight hours. A perfect example of this would be the last movie in the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. This was a great movie however towards the end I actually became really annoyed at all of the possible ending spots (I counted 4). So movie makers tend to cut many of the subplots from the book in order to cut back on the time that the viewers spend doing nothing. This is actually quite tragic since some of the subplots and subtle actions are what inevitably make the book great. Because of this I really hate to cross reference a book to its movie counterpart since all that really comes out of it is a list of everything that the movie cut out of the book in order to save on time. However there is one thing about the movie version of Jayne Eyre that I feel that I would like to comment on. That is the way Rochester looks.

Rochester to me just looks way too hot to really express an underlying feeling that the story presented. That was the feeling was that this type of love could happen to anyone. Now don’t get me wrong this guy was far from being Fabio however he just gave the vibe (at least to me) of being a cut above the rest. Replacing this actor with another would not change the film length at all and it would give the aforementioned feeling to all of the moviegoers. Personally I feel that Jack Nickelson would make a much better Rochester. He’s short, has an older looking face which would add to the illusion of Rochester being so much older than Jayne. He also has a lot of practice doing individual roles that combine to make Rochester. He has played a rich man who learns how to not look down on others and he has played the lover of a much younger female counterpart. If he can fake a British accent then he’s perfect.

Till next time.

Will Pugh

The Human Named Crusoe

The reason that the idea of Robinson Crusoe learning anything or changing over the course of the book is so fiercely debated is actually quite simple. Daniel Defoe first pitched this book as a true story, in order to do this he would have to give Robinson Crusoe very detailed human Characteristics, including the characteristic of a “fleeting heart”. To put it simply the reason for this debate was because Robinson Crusoe had his “good days” and “bad days”. To help prove my point rather than giving exact quotes form the book I think that it would be better if I made somewhat of a flowchart to show what I believe to be his progression throughout the story.

At the beginning of the story Robinson is a bit of a brat. He decides that all he wants to do in life is go out to sea to seek his fortune there. This in and of itself is not that bad of a thing to do. However he decides to set out on this journey against his parent’s wishes and without telling them, even though they had lost another son to the sea, worrying them to death.

Later on in the book Crusoe really has not changed much if anything he has changed for the worse. After he was captured and forced into slavery he escapes by backstabbing the man who helped him get out of there. He then finds himself with a dilemma. A little boy named Xury is tagging along with him during his escape. What was Crusoe’s dilemma? “Should I kill the kid or make him work for me?” thankfully he decides to spare the kid but after a few years he sells Xury back into slavery.

Now we fast forward to the time where Crusoe has had some time to himself on a deserted island. He’s conquered a deadly illness and in the process has taken god into his life. Recently he has also been living in fear from some cannibals from a neighboring island. It is here when his biggest change is actually shown that is when he actually confronts several of the cannibals and saves one who is about to be eaten. This shows that he has changed for the better since it can be assumed that the old Crusoe, who had backstabbed people in the back to escape from slavery when it really wasn’t needed, would not have stuck his neck out for a man he did not even know and he considered to be a savage. However this is a very fleeting good deed, since Crusoe turns right around and gives that cannibal a new name Friday and tells Friday to call him “Master.”

Now here is where the biggest change in his personality is seen. After several more years Crusoe finds a way off the island but in order to get off the island he needs to defeat a mutinous crew. He defeats the crew and then actually lets them stay on the island where the law was to take them back to England so that they would be executed for their crimes. So in essence Crusoe has now broken the law in order to spare the people that were his enemy’s just moments before. This shows the most dramatic change in the character so far. After he returns home he finds that he has become quite rich so what does Crusoe do with all the money? He gives most of it away! This is concrete proof that Crusoe is now a changed man.

TTFN (Ta Ta For Now)

Will Pugh

Taboo birds of the sea

While reading "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" I noticed that there were some questions on why the Mariner was being punished so for killing the albatross. I decided to clear some of the confusion on this area. First off, to sailors there are two birds which are considered to be the greatest good luck. They are the dove and the albatross. It is easy enough to see why both of these birds are seen as good luck to sailors. The dove is seen as good luck thanks to the supernatural nature of the sailors and the fact that it was a dove that brought Noah the olive branch that signaled land after god's seven day flood. This symbol within the bible would obviously lead sailors to assume that the dove is a symbol of good fortune since the greatest fortune for a sailor was arriving at the island they were sailing to. The albatross became famous for virtually the same reason except this story’s origins have more of a scientific background. The albatross is a sea bird meaning that it is naturally able to fly much further out to sea than many other types of birds. Birds are able to fly across the sea but most bird only do this during a migration season while the albatross can be found out at sea all year long. Also while it is able to fly fairly far out to sea it has somewhat of a natural boundary from an island or land mass. Because of this the albatross was the first bird that sailors saw and land was soon after a sighting of this bird. It is from these backgrounds that the myths about the dove and albatross were born. The myths state that while the birds remained free and unharmed a fair and plentiful land will always await those who follow it. However those foolish enough to endanger either of these birds would be met with the full ferocity of the sea. Obviously we saw how ferocious the sea can be when the Mariner killed the albatross.

"O" why basketball?

Let me start out by stating that I really enjoyed watching "O". It was a very well written movie that, I feel, captured the core ideas of the Shakespearean play. I feel that they made appropriate changes to the play in order to make it more appealing and relatable to highschoolers. However there is just one thing that I had a little bit of trouble with. This was the fact that they tried to substitute war with basketball.
I have no problem with them substituting war with a sport. War is a big part of "Othello" and sports is the closest thing to war for a highschooler. However I think that it would have been a much better fit if, instead of basketball, they used football. The reason is because it was obvious to me that the filmmakers were trying to use each of their positions on the court to further tell the story of each character.
Iago's character was a center, a person who does most of the heavy lifting, getting the rebounds and muscling out the potential threats. The center is normally the position with the least recognition. Cassio's character was a forward, forwards tend to be a jack of all trades and both shoot and rebound, this is a good support position and generally tends to be in the middle in terms of popularity. Finally Othello's character was a guard. Guards are basically the generals of the court. They start and decide the offensive plays, which I will admit really fits an Othello character. The guard must also be able to shoot and is almost always the most popular player in the school.
Now here are just a few of the problems I have with this sport decision. First is the fact that every single one of these positions is interchangeable between each of these characters. Hugo even admits to playing every position in one of his rants. Second is the fact that the "General" part of being a guard is a lot less important than the shooting aspect. If a team has enough skill then they really don't need a good commander. The final point is the fact that, while it is true that you have better chance at being popular based on your position, it really comes down to your own skill. Shaq is a very popular center because he's just that good at what he does. This is not the case in football.
If the filmmakers had chosen football then they could have made Iago's character a center, which almost never gets to touch the ball, has very little recognition, and has to work the hardest each play, holding back one or possibly two 200+ pound guys back each play. Then they could have made Cassio's character a receiver which is the second most important offensive position in the game and the one that needs to have the most coordination with the quarterback. And of course the could have made Othello's character the quarterback. The most essential position on the entire team. The quarterback needs to call the plays and read the defense in order to win. And, unlike a guard, aside from throwing, the quarterback really doesn’t need a lot of physical ability.
There are several other advantages to using football to simulate war rather than basketball not the least of which being that football has a general feel of war that basketball does not. Also there is no way a football team can win without a proper strategist as a quarterback. This would ad more to the feeling of their military positions. Especially "Othello's" position as a general. Then there is the fact that it would be much easier to explain how "Othello" gets hurt during the move and help better connect this scene to the play.
Finally there is the fact that it would be very simple to show how "Cassio" and "Othello" fighting would directly affect the course of the game. Because receiver-quarterback communication is essential in any football match.
All in all "O" was an extremely good movie I just feel that there was a better choice for the symbolism of war.

Till next time

Will

Wife of bath. How evil is evil?

I found the wife to be incredibly vain and self centered. (There are tons of quotes that support this that I will post at the end of this assignment. So don't try to argue this point unless you're ready to argue for a REALLY long time) And while these are traits that I find incredibly annoying and unwanted I don't think that this is enough for me to classify her as evil.

Quotes to support my argument and loose interpritation:

In al the parisshe wif ne was ther noon

That to the offrynge bifore hire sholde goon;

Translation: no body went up and paid tribute before her during church.

And if ther dide, certeyn so wrooth was she,
That she was out of alle charitee.
Translation: if someone was stupid enough to pay tribute before her she would get PISSED.


Hir coverchiefs ful fyne weren of ground;
I dorste swere they weyeden ten pound
That on a Sonday weren upon hir heed.
Hir hosen weren of fyn scarlet reed,
Translation: she wears 10 ponds of nice, expensive, good looking clothes to church.

Of remedies of love she knew per chaunce,
For she koude of that art the olde daunce.
Translation: she's been around the block

"Experience, though noon auctoritee
Were in this world, were right ynogh to me
To speke of wo that is in mariage.
Translation: This is a direct quote from her saying that she is the best mariage expert in the world. (Better even than the Dr Phil's and Oprah's of her time.)

Well, My work here is done.

Peace out till next time!