Riddled throughout the text of Pride and Prejudice is the ongoing struggle of societal status. Who is following decorum? Who has the gaudiest estate? Whose sister is ruining the reputation of her family by eloping with some man? These types of questions seem to have an ominous presence on each page. The problem with social status, however, is not its existence, but its vehicle-like nature in production action among the characters. For instance, Mrs. Bennet is enthralled with the idea of Jane and Bingley getting married. Her fanatical response to Jane being ill at the Bingley home reveals her obsession with their relationship. But why? Mrs. Bennet is captured by the idea of living vicariously through her daughter's claim to richness. Mrs. Bennet has lived in the society long enough to realize that wealth is the sole contender in being a respectable society member, and Bingley is Jane's vehicle. By elevating Jane, the entire Bennet family will enjoy its assumed benefits of status and success. Secondly, even the logical Elizabeth falls lame to the tugs of the aristocracy. Initially despising the haughty attitude of Mr. Darcy (thus mirroring her distaste of his 'status'), Elizabeth soon becomes enraptured by Darcy's opinion of her family--even assuming that her connection with her wealthy aunt and uncle would come as an unlikely surprise to Darcy. Presumably one of the most logical and rational characters in the text, Elizabeths's involvement in the societal status dispute allows the reader to assume that the struggle is unavoidable. She is unable to take part in a relationship with Darcy while her concern for status is fogging her outlook. Thus, the problem of status lies in its ability to suffocate innocent ideals.
While societal struggle has been and will always be a problem, Austen is not condemning its existence, in fact, she is saying that it is unavoidable. Even the most trustworthy and promising characters are inferior to its limitless bounds. However, Austen is making the point that true happiness is found when societal rank does not determine happiness. Just as Elizabeth finds love in the man of Darcy, the reader sees that status cannot be a factor. It is once Elizabeth accepts the character of Darcy and forgives him his ironic 'lack of regard' for society that she finds true happiness. As a reader, one must view the text in a pragmatic manner. How does the ending reflect the struggle throughout? Is the conclusion a summation of the text? We find that the struggle between Darcy and Elizabeth mirrors the struggle of society, and their "happy ending" is a result of their ability to overcome the bounds of status. Therefore, the reader should identify the presence of status, but also his ability to overcome it if he desires the happiness beyond. Just as Darcy, Elizabeth, Jane, and Bingley demonstrate, rank has little to do with the matters of the heart--the very matters that make their marriages work. From viewing the struggles of the characters in the aristocratic society and their resulting joy, the reader ought to see the design that status must be overcome for relationships to function.
To be honest, Jane Austen is brilliant. I feel as though societal pressures and unspoken rules are portrayed in an honest light--- the very light that illuminates a solution. While she is not condemning society, Austen genuinely describes the difficulties of adhering to social cues, proper fraternizing, dinner hosting, etc. I appreciate Austen's eagerness to reveal human interaction as the panacea for stringent social status laws. Austen suggests that digging deeper beyond one's wealth and status is where their true merit is found, and the resulting Darcy and Elizabeth demonstrate this very concept. People spend so much time and energy investing in the latest technology and fanciest clothes that they lose sight of the importance of interaction. While it would be easier to blame the world for its corruptness, Austen suggests that humans have the power to define their happiness. It is not by the material realm, but by the emotional and spiritual realm beyond. First appearances are rarely accurate, and Pride and Prejudice attests to it. Personally, I admire peoples' abilities to be real. Not just social statuses, but every material barrier that humans put up to calculate worth and purpose leads to struggle. Unfortunately the world has always been this way, but don't lose hope. Just as Jane Austen wrote and I believe, it is what lies beyond the surface that truly makes a difference. Don't ever sell yourself out at the surface level.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Thursday, January 13, 2011
The Way I See It.
Let's just say that the lens I bring to literature is... colorful. The only way to describe my biases and convictions is to explore my highly intelectual and vastly thought-provoking nail polish collection... :)
1) Matronly Taupe: I begin my quest of lens identification with my bias towards characters. In the most simple way, I enter a text looking for an opinion of a character, and it is not difficult to get me 'riled up'. I look for characters to be responsible, genuine, and of the upmost integrity, and when they lose my trust, sadly my capability to empathize with them throughout the rest of the book is compromised. The 'Matronly Taupe' shade embodies my desire for a character to be good-intentioned-- and if they aren't, my view of them and their actions throughout the entirety of the work is biased and steadfast.
2) Sentimental Crimson: Secondly, although my initial lens would seem otherwise, I find deep emotion to be a driving force in literature. Whenever a scene touches my heart strings or reminds me of emotional encounters that I have had, I immediately tune in to the text. Whether I am looking for catharsis or just a person to sympathize with, emotion is where I begin to draw my opinions of characters and whose actions I support. The "Sentimental Crimson" hue represents the deep feelings of empathy that accompany my voyage through a text.
3) Quirky Emerald: The long descriptions of scenery, the intricate paintings of faces, the scensory details of the weather... but what do I get caught up in? The blue and yellow bug whose quick flight through the scene is rapid and seemingly meaningless. But why? Being such an intricate thinker myself, I find it easy to become distracted by the 'little details' of the text because it is through them, I believe, that meaning is found. 'Quirky Emerald' best illustrates my fascination with oddity and my earnest quest for it.
4) Transparent/Cohesive Clear: I come into a piece of literature looking for sequence. Ultimately, I was things to 'make sense'. When urged in English class to expound upon the abstract, I must first identify the concrete. Throughout a work of literature, I am firstly concerned with the logic of action. If someone dies within the first few pages, I could care less about the bountiful rows of daisies a few streets over, I want resolution and vengeance. 'Cohesive Clear' once again mimicks my lens; one with a passion for coherance.
5) Antithetical Black: What is better in a book than controversy? When I read a piece of literature, I look for opinions and perspectives that oppose my own. It is through this 'simulated controversy' that I develop an argument. It is almost as though I pretend that my opinions are being attacked so that I pay closer attention to their arguments while simultaneously formulating a counter-argument. The best example I have is in Crime and Punishment. Raskolnikov is known for his extremely Nihilistic rationale, and all throughout the book, I kept note of his responses so as to gain a better understanding of his reasoning. Once I finished the book, I found ways to refute his claims and solidify my own. 'Antithetical Black' reveals the controversy I seek in literature.
6) Razzle-Dazzle Rose: One thing that I constantly forget about--yet it yields a great influence on my analysis-- is my generation. Times of black and white motion picture, eight-track tapes, and soliloquies have vanished, and now, I am surrounded with flashing lights, rapid conversations, and an expectance of quick technology. When I begin a slow piece of literature, it becomes easy to lose interest and become disappointed when a 787 jet doesn't enter the scene. Also, application of texts are extremely compromised by my cultural surroundings. Maybe Shakespeare couldn't understand the roles of females who are now CEO's of companies? Maybe Thoreau didn't understand the allure of NYC and that's why he chose nature? I don't know, but I always wonder. Hence, 'Razzle-Dazzle Rose' brilliantly encapsulates my lens once again.
***I must say, I had a splendid time sitting on my floor looking through nail polish colors and attempting to find emotions through their tones... :)
1) Matronly Taupe: I begin my quest of lens identification with my bias towards characters. In the most simple way, I enter a text looking for an opinion of a character, and it is not difficult to get me 'riled up'. I look for characters to be responsible, genuine, and of the upmost integrity, and when they lose my trust, sadly my capability to empathize with them throughout the rest of the book is compromised. The 'Matronly Taupe' shade embodies my desire for a character to be good-intentioned-- and if they aren't, my view of them and their actions throughout the entirety of the work is biased and steadfast.
2) Sentimental Crimson: Secondly, although my initial lens would seem otherwise, I find deep emotion to be a driving force in literature. Whenever a scene touches my heart strings or reminds me of emotional encounters that I have had, I immediately tune in to the text. Whether I am looking for catharsis or just a person to sympathize with, emotion is where I begin to draw my opinions of characters and whose actions I support. The "Sentimental Crimson" hue represents the deep feelings of empathy that accompany my voyage through a text.
3) Quirky Emerald: The long descriptions of scenery, the intricate paintings of faces, the scensory details of the weather... but what do I get caught up in? The blue and yellow bug whose quick flight through the scene is rapid and seemingly meaningless. But why? Being such an intricate thinker myself, I find it easy to become distracted by the 'little details' of the text because it is through them, I believe, that meaning is found. 'Quirky Emerald' best illustrates my fascination with oddity and my earnest quest for it.
4) Transparent/Cohesive Clear: I come into a piece of literature looking for sequence. Ultimately, I was things to 'make sense'. When urged in English class to expound upon the abstract, I must first identify the concrete. Throughout a work of literature, I am firstly concerned with the logic of action. If someone dies within the first few pages, I could care less about the bountiful rows of daisies a few streets over, I want resolution and vengeance. 'Cohesive Clear' once again mimicks my lens; one with a passion for coherance.
5) Antithetical Black: What is better in a book than controversy? When I read a piece of literature, I look for opinions and perspectives that oppose my own. It is through this 'simulated controversy' that I develop an argument. It is almost as though I pretend that my opinions are being attacked so that I pay closer attention to their arguments while simultaneously formulating a counter-argument. The best example I have is in Crime and Punishment. Raskolnikov is known for his extremely Nihilistic rationale, and all throughout the book, I kept note of his responses so as to gain a better understanding of his reasoning. Once I finished the book, I found ways to refute his claims and solidify my own. 'Antithetical Black' reveals the controversy I seek in literature.
6) Razzle-Dazzle Rose: One thing that I constantly forget about--yet it yields a great influence on my analysis-- is my generation. Times of black and white motion picture, eight-track tapes, and soliloquies have vanished, and now, I am surrounded with flashing lights, rapid conversations, and an expectance of quick technology. When I begin a slow piece of literature, it becomes easy to lose interest and become disappointed when a 787 jet doesn't enter the scene. Also, application of texts are extremely compromised by my cultural surroundings. Maybe Shakespeare couldn't understand the roles of females who are now CEO's of companies? Maybe Thoreau didn't understand the allure of NYC and that's why he chose nature? I don't know, but I always wonder. Hence, 'Razzle-Dazzle Rose' brilliantly encapsulates my lens once again.
***I must say, I had a splendid time sitting on my floor looking through nail polish colors and attempting to find emotions through their tones... :)
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Reader-Response: Willy Loman
I detest Willy. Willy is arrogant, egotistical, ignorant, and a horrible father figure. He forces one child into 'fame' and utterly neglects the other. He refuses to show weakness, error, or fault, and his frank stubbornness permeates his every move. His ego finally pinnacles in the ultimate selfish act: suidcide. Throughout the text of The Death of a Salesman, the character of Willy Loman ought to evoke frustration and ire in it's reader.
For instance, Willy's relationship with his sons is temperamental and self-seeking. While having a conversation with his boys, Willy gleefully tells Biff that, "[he] must really be makin' a hit," only seconds later to correct Happy's carwashing ability by saying, "show him how to do it, Biff!" (35). Rarely does Willy show any favor towards Happy, and Biff--the blooming football player-- tends to naturally capture his father's attention. As witnessed in later statements such as, "me comin' into the Boston stores with you boys carryin' my bags. What a sensation!", Willy is driven by success and the keeping of appearances (39). His favoratism of Biff is true of his egotistical nature that desires fame and status, even if it means living vicariously through his son. Any father who seeks self worth through the abilities of their children should not be revered in literature, or life for that matter.
Secondly, Willy's inability to accept critique demonstrates his flawed character. After his friend Charley suspected Willy of cheating at a card game, Willy's flushed response is to call Charley, "ignoramus!" while slamming the door behind him (51). Willy has little patience, and his self-control level is that of a small child. An adult should be able to peacefully abate the situation, but instead, Willy is the source of the mayhem. Additionally, when Willy goes to visit Charley, he runs into Bernard, and amidst their nervy conversation, Willy declares, "what are you trying to do, blame it on me?...well, don't--don't talk to me that way!" (92). Willy views any sort of questioning as a personal attack, and his child-like defensive nature is eager to 'attack' the sender. When any character investigates Willy's source of unhappiness, family problems, or financial plunders, Willy refuses to cooperate and instead responds with bitterness and annoyance. Willy is dry of humility, and his impulsive behavior leads the reader to deny him of any positive merit. Thus, in reading the play, The Death of a Salesman, the reader can identify negative moral, feminist, and psychological conclusions through the heinous character of Willy.
For instance, Willy's relationship with his sons is temperamental and self-seeking. While having a conversation with his boys, Willy gleefully tells Biff that, "[he] must really be makin' a hit," only seconds later to correct Happy's carwashing ability by saying, "show him how to do it, Biff!" (35). Rarely does Willy show any favor towards Happy, and Biff--the blooming football player-- tends to naturally capture his father's attention. As witnessed in later statements such as, "me comin' into the Boston stores with you boys carryin' my bags. What a sensation!", Willy is driven by success and the keeping of appearances (39). His favoratism of Biff is true of his egotistical nature that desires fame and status, even if it means living vicariously through his son. Any father who seeks self worth through the abilities of their children should not be revered in literature, or life for that matter.
Secondly, Willy's inability to accept critique demonstrates his flawed character. After his friend Charley suspected Willy of cheating at a card game, Willy's flushed response is to call Charley, "ignoramus!" while slamming the door behind him (51). Willy has little patience, and his self-control level is that of a small child. An adult should be able to peacefully abate the situation, but instead, Willy is the source of the mayhem. Additionally, when Willy goes to visit Charley, he runs into Bernard, and amidst their nervy conversation, Willy declares, "what are you trying to do, blame it on me?...well, don't--don't talk to me that way!" (92). Willy views any sort of questioning as a personal attack, and his child-like defensive nature is eager to 'attack' the sender. When any character investigates Willy's source of unhappiness, family problems, or financial plunders, Willy refuses to cooperate and instead responds with bitterness and annoyance. Willy is dry of humility, and his impulsive behavior leads the reader to deny him of any positive merit. Thus, in reading the play, The Death of a Salesman, the reader can identify negative moral, feminist, and psychological conclusions through the heinous character of Willy.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Who Are You, Camille?
I remember those times when I feared nothing. A time where I wanted to be nowhere else but sitting along a dirty old curb, chatting for hours. A time where my heart knew nothing of breakage, doubt, or fear-- as a matter of fact, vulnerability was all that I knew. If only I could go back to that time when I didn't know what fears the future would bring--life was so much simpler. Back when I had a romantic understanding of the world, I didn't have inhibitions or the emotional scars that, to tell you the truth, ache every now and again. But does this really go to say that ignorance is bliss? All I really know is that life is so much different now.
What about those times when I felt as though the world was my biggest fan? Everything had great potential just waiting to be seized. I could be Cinderella one day, and Carmen San Diego the next-- and the great thing was, that was normal. Dreams of the future were so far off that anything and everything was acceptable. There were no looming deadlines or intrusive questions that cut my potential short-- just dreams stemming from guileless intent. Life was so much different then.
I remember when making it to the next rung of the monkey bars was equivalent to scaling the tallest of mountains. The practice and preparation it took to claim the victory was long and toilsome work--at least a few precious days of recess. Nothing stands as tall as the feeling of accomplishment in an innocent mind; you are untouchable. Obstacles sure are different now. There is rarely an audience waiting to applaud your newest feat and stare sparkly-eyed at your beaming smile. For the most part, your audience has wilted into an apathetic group of peers who find a new item on the lunch menu just as exciting as your accomplishments. 
Back when the question of 'Who are you?' could be answered by a favorite book, color and vacation spot, my complex was one dimensional. Thought was never necessary when dreams were so much more concrete. 13 lawyers, 20 nurses, and 15 future presidents miraculously walked through the same doors every morning-- and that was okay. "Who I am" was a futile answer because so much of my identity relied upon other people. It was hard to speak of a grand place in the world when the very shoes that I walked in were dependent upon someone else's ability to tie them.
And then a realistic view of the world hit me like a plank falling at terminal velocity. I found that heartache, apathy, dead ends, lies, and shortcomings were as plentiful as the innocent dreams that they now crushed. It became hard to let people in because I now knew the product of vulnerability. Dreams had to be stifled because money, capabilities, and accessibility were now factors in the equation of possibility. Obstacles were no longer shoelaces and monkey bars, but the blunt recognition of lost naivety. Most of all, "Who are you?" was no longer asked by others; it was asked by me. 
With a whole-hearted acceptance of the simplicity of youth, I began to contrast the complexity that comes with age. I began thinking, Which one is better? Back when I was ignorant to the unfairness of the world and failure was a foreign term, I sucked the 'marrow out of life' and knew no boundaries. Now that I had been introduced to the world's vices, I saw the potential for dissapointment, but I also saw the possibility of good. This awarness, unfortunately, made the action of taking leaps much harder. I had just been aquainted with the 'real world' in time for high school to assure me that there was so much more life to live. Oh great, I've only just begun. 
Here is the problem: I am half logical and half emotionally driven. My logical side would agree that simplicity was better- there were fewer pros and cons to weigh, deep thought was rarely activated, and my eyes were not ladened with hurt. However, my emotional side would protest, saying that complexity was best-I could navigate through choices based upon experience, I would have a better understanding of the world, and I could finally muster up a response to "Who are you?" 
an innocent view of the world as a child, the hard facts that life offers would numb us to hope, dreams, and love. It is from that sparkly-eyed optimism that I remember the good in the world. As I approach the end of the road, I admit, what lies beyond is daunting. Thankfully, I know Someone who has had this road mapped out long before I began to walk it. He gave me the precious experiences that have gotten me to where I am today, and I will desperately rely upon that truth as I waltz ahead. Life sure will be different now, but hey, I'm ready.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Poetry Thought Piece: "Faith" is a fine invention
"Faith" is a fine invention When Gentlemen can see--
But Microscopes are prudent
In an Emergency.
For being so concise, Emily Dickinson's poem is packed with a message. First, let's assess the prose meaning--general facts--of the poem. In the short four line stanza, Dickinson makes the inference that mankind accepts the idea of faith as long there is tangible evidence involved (Microscopes). Once problems in the invisible realm occur (Faith), man reverts back to his own reason and understanding for answers. Furthurmore, Dickinson is describing humanity's tendency to rely upon knowledge and resources instead of an invisible God. While man can acknowledge divine existence, he becomes skeptical and panicky when a situation's outcome is out of his own range of influence.
And now for the prose meaning. How do I feel as I read "Faith" is a fine invention? And what makes me feel that way? First, the melodic rhyme is worth noting. I found it somewhat ironic that a poem contemplating the psyche of man would 'bounce' with such a carefree rhyme. That's just it-- it IS ironic. The cadence of the poem, if anything, increases the irony of Dickinson's point. I interpret the rhyme to demonstrate the presence of man's folly in the poem. In addition to the rhyme, Dickinson characterizes faith as a "fine invention." Faith, as described by Dickinson, is produced by man. I also found it interesting that the word faith is in quotes. Both of these portrayals of the word faith suggest that man has taken a holy and untouchable concept and reduced it to a mere word of science. Once again, Dickinson illustrates the overwhelming and consumptive presence of man's thought in an extremely uncomprehensible and intentionally difficult subject. "Faith" loses its definition when man tries to define it. Dickinson furthers her point on the arrogance and seeming self-sufficience of man by her description of reason. She concludes the poem by stating that "Microscopes are prudent.'' Considering the simplicity of the rest of the poem, prudent seems to embody the complexity of man's reason. Instead of saying 'practical' or 'wise,' Dickinson chooses the word prudent to reveal the intelligence of humanity, but the moral of her poem refutes the worth of this intelligence. Overwhelmingly, "Faith" is a fine invention is a 'bouncy' poem riddled with the irony of man's intelligence. Yes, it is concise, but maybe a lengthened poem filled with impossibly large words would detract from her simple message: man's intellect defeats the purpose of faith.
But Microscopes are prudent
In an Emergency.
For being so concise, Emily Dickinson's poem is packed with a message. First, let's assess the prose meaning--general facts--of the poem. In the short four line stanza, Dickinson makes the inference that mankind accepts the idea of faith as long there is tangible evidence involved (Microscopes). Once problems in the invisible realm occur (Faith), man reverts back to his own reason and understanding for answers. Furthurmore, Dickinson is describing humanity's tendency to rely upon knowledge and resources instead of an invisible God. While man can acknowledge divine existence, he becomes skeptical and panicky when a situation's outcome is out of his own range of influence.
And now for the prose meaning. How do I feel as I read "Faith" is a fine invention? And what makes me feel that way? First, the melodic rhyme is worth noting. I found it somewhat ironic that a poem contemplating the psyche of man would 'bounce' with such a carefree rhyme. That's just it-- it IS ironic. The cadence of the poem, if anything, increases the irony of Dickinson's point. I interpret the rhyme to demonstrate the presence of man's folly in the poem. In addition to the rhyme, Dickinson characterizes faith as a "fine invention." Faith, as described by Dickinson, is produced by man. I also found it interesting that the word faith is in quotes. Both of these portrayals of the word faith suggest that man has taken a holy and untouchable concept and reduced it to a mere word of science. Once again, Dickinson illustrates the overwhelming and consumptive presence of man's thought in an extremely uncomprehensible and intentionally difficult subject. "Faith" loses its definition when man tries to define it. Dickinson furthers her point on the arrogance and seeming self-sufficience of man by her description of reason. She concludes the poem by stating that "Microscopes are prudent.'' Considering the simplicity of the rest of the poem, prudent seems to embody the complexity of man's reason. Instead of saying 'practical' or 'wise,' Dickinson chooses the word prudent to reveal the intelligence of humanity, but the moral of her poem refutes the worth of this intelligence. Overwhelmingly, "Faith" is a fine invention is a 'bouncy' poem riddled with the irony of man's intelligence. Yes, it is concise, but maybe a lengthened poem filled with impossibly large words would detract from her simple message: man's intellect defeats the purpose of faith.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
TONE: that which is verbal expressed in the word...al?
My Mistress' Eyes: William Shakespeare (1564-1616)
My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun;
Coral is far more red than her lips' red;
If snow be white, why then her breast are dun;
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damasked, red and white,
But no such roses see I in her cheeks;
And in some perfumes is there more delight
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know
That music hath a far more pleasing sound;
I grant I never saw a goddess go,--
My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground.
And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
As any she belied with false compare.
Throughout this piece, Shakespeare weaves two distinct yet complimentary tones. He mixes adoring with affirming. Specifically seen in the phrases highlited gray, Shakespeare seems to be conceeding the "mediocrity" of his mistress. His comparative words--nothing like, far more, but no such, yet well-- would seem to have a tone of shame, but Shakespeare's ingenious combination of adoration with apparent "shame" leads me to believe that his "shame" is actually affirmation. Through his affirmed tone, Shakespeare is telling the audience that his mistress, while she may not be pictured in People's 50 Hottest Women spread, is just what he wants. We additionally see his satisfaction with his mistress in his obvious tone of adoration. Here, Shakespeare's word connotation flips and serves as an indicator of his new tone. Now, Shakespeare utilizes words such as: love, heaven, rare and compare. In comparison to the previous darker and more 'ugly' words (damasked, reeks, tread...), Shakespeare's change of word choice reveals an ardor for the person of his mistress.
Employing strong word connotation and exaggerated comparisons, Shakespeare reveals his tone of adoration and confirmation to his audience...by which it seems he is affirming his love for his mistress.
My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun;
Coral is far more red than her lips' red;
If snow be white, why then her breast are dun;
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damasked, red and white,
But no such roses see I in her cheeks;
And in some perfumes is there more delight
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know
That music hath a far more pleasing sound;
I grant I never saw a goddess go,--
My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground.
And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
As any she belied with false compare.
Throughout this piece, Shakespeare weaves two distinct yet complimentary tones. He mixes adoring with affirming. Specifically seen in the phrases highlited gray, Shakespeare seems to be conceeding the "mediocrity" of his mistress. His comparative words--nothing like, far more, but no such, yet well-- would seem to have a tone of shame, but Shakespeare's ingenious combination of adoration with apparent "shame" leads me to believe that his "shame" is actually affirmation. Through his affirmed tone, Shakespeare is telling the audience that his mistress, while she may not be pictured in People's 50 Hottest Women spread, is just what he wants. We additionally see his satisfaction with his mistress in his obvious tone of adoration. Here, Shakespeare's word connotation flips and serves as an indicator of his new tone. Now, Shakespeare utilizes words such as: love, heaven, rare and compare. In comparison to the previous darker and more 'ugly' words (damasked, reeks, tread...), Shakespeare's change of word choice reveals an ardor for the person of his mistress.
Employing strong word connotation and exaggerated comparisons, Shakespeare reveals his tone of adoration and confirmation to his audience...by which it seems he is affirming his love for his mistress.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Myers-Briggs Personality Type Test:
My name is Camille, and I am an INFJ:
Introvert-- 44%
Intuitive--25%
Feeling--50%
Judging--56%
Wow! What an interesting test. Never once have I felt like a personality test was so spot on. Initially, I was a bit confused by the terminology of the four catergories, but once I read up on them, I understood how my introvertedness, intuition, sense of feeling and sense of judging are all vital components of my psyche. For example, I tend to be in my element in smaller groups of people where deeper levels of conversation are reached. Also, I respond much better to situations when I have had the chance to engage my emotions and my recollection of previous experiences. All of these "Camille quirks" are accurately depicted in my test results, and, believe it or not, suggest a profession that I have already decided upon! In the past few years, I have really become excited by the field of Psychology. According to the Myers-Briggs test, Counseling (a branch of Psychological study/practice) is a match for my personality type. Yay! One quote in the description of an INFJ personality analysis that particularly sparked my interest was that INFJ's "value their integrity a great deal, but they have mysterious, intricately woven personalities which sometimes even puzzle themselves." If there is a better way to describe me, I'd sure like to see how.
Introvert-- 44%
Intuitive--25%
Feeling--50%
Judging--56%
Wow! What an interesting test. Never once have I felt like a personality test was so spot on. Initially, I was a bit confused by the terminology of the four catergories, but once I read up on them, I understood how my introvertedness, intuition, sense of feeling and sense of judging are all vital components of my psyche. For example, I tend to be in my element in smaller groups of people where deeper levels of conversation are reached. Also, I respond much better to situations when I have had the chance to engage my emotions and my recollection of previous experiences. All of these "Camille quirks" are accurately depicted in my test results, and, believe it or not, suggest a profession that I have already decided upon! In the past few years, I have really become excited by the field of Psychology. According to the Myers-Briggs test, Counseling (a branch of Psychological study/practice) is a match for my personality type. Yay! One quote in the description of an INFJ personality analysis that particularly sparked my interest was that INFJ's "value their integrity a great deal, but they have mysterious, intricately woven personalities which sometimes even puzzle themselves." If there is a better way to describe me, I'd sure like to see how.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)