Comedy In Doctor Faustus.

Last English Lit lesson we looked at comedy and the idea of comedy in the play Doctor Faustus. We started off talking about comedy and what we thought it meant and was. Obviously everyone knows what comedy is, but it ended up being pretty hard to explain, I ended defining it as a "form of entertainment which makes you laugh or amuses you, a.k.a, HANNAH' Well, she is a VERY funny gal! We then talked about other things about comedy , such as what makes it comedy, so kind of a relief of tension, breaking of taboo's etc. 

After this we looked at the idea of Renaissance Comedy, and we wrote that comedy as a genre, during the Renaissance times, was more about mistaken identities, love and marriage. Then there was comedy in a tragedy, which was more about 'lower' status characters outwitting their 'higher' status characters, and was more like wordplay and slapstick. This in turn lead us on to the point of our lesson, comedy in Faustus. 

We looked at the final scene of Act 1, so Act 1 Scene 4, and discussed its comedic values and the point or worth of it being included in the play as a whole, as well as where it is in the play. This scene is in between to quite vital scenes, the one where Faustus meets Mephistopheles and before he sells his soul. DUN DUN DUN! Anyway, in the scene, the character Wagner is trying to convince the character, who we have just been introduced too, Robin, to be his slave basically. The situation between Wagner and Robin is meant to mirror that of Mephy and Faustus. However, although it seems to mirror the scene before, this scene is meant to be funny and well full of comedy. It was so funny, like really really funny...

After reading the scene we started quickly discussing reasons and possibilities as to why the scene as included and why it was placed in between two very serious and important scenes. I feel the main reason, and I sort of mentioned it earlier, for why the scene was included was because it mirrored or was parallel to the events between Mephy and Faustus and I feel Marlowe wanted to ridicule and mock Faustus. Marlowe does this successfully because he creates a contrast and comparison between the lowly "boy" that is Robin and the great Doctor Faustus. He does this by making Robin rejects Wagners offer of becoming his servant boy and so causes Fautus to appear foolish and well stupid. This would be comical to a Renaissance audience because, when we looked at their style and the criteria for their comedy, it mentioned lowly status outwitting higher status. So, although Robin didn't outwit Faustus personally, he technically outwitted Faustus with his overall decision,and so placed the lowly person as being more clever (?) than Faustus, who felt he was better than "divinity...medicine...law and theology."

Other slightly weaker interpretations as to why the scene was included are:

• It was used to relieve tension from the audience, as the two scenes surrounding this scene touch on what would have been a pretty heavy subject for them, e.g. the corruption of religion and association with the devil. 
• Its connected to relieving the tension, as I felt he wanted to lift the atmosphere because he included the scene as he was trying to break, what would have been considered during his times, as a taboo subject (Not entirely sure) 
• Faustus was trying to ridicule norms, so in this context I feel Marlowe was trying to ridicule the fear the audience feels towards certain parts of religion etc. (Not entirely sure myself again)

As you can probably tell I'm not really entirely sure or certain as to why this scene was included and why it was included where it was, but if I become more certain or we go over it more in class them I will blog about it. 

Done. 

The Legend of the Extra Devil in Faustus.

Well this will be a nice short blog on a rumour, or legend about an extra devil in the play or performance Doctor Faustus.

Basically, a long time ago, 16th Century times, the play Doctor Faustus gained an infamous reputation of having a real devil/ spirit on stage with the actors. This occurred around 1594ish, when a member of the audience claimed he had seen an extra devil character on stage, which in turn scared both the audience and the cast/actors. Supposedly, according to rumours and legend, the appearance of the extra devil occurred several times and caused many to believe the play was cursed, which in all honesty acted in Marlowe's favour and caused the play to become more popular.

Done.

Stage and Production.

Doctor Faustus is a play and therefore it needs to be performed in a theatre (yes THEATRE, not TheEter) to arrive at a clear interpretation of its meaning. However, depending on the performance and presentation, the interpretation of the meaning and of the performance as a whole may change/ be different. So, in the quick blog I will noting how different interpretations may occur in Doctor Faustus.

Marlowe wrote Doctor Faustus during the Elizabethan times, or, in a Literature view of History, the Shakespearean times. This means Marlowe most probably intended or designed his play to be performed on a Shakespearean type of stage, with a large so called "thrust stage" projecting into the auditorium. This type of stage would have caused the audience to feel involved and close to the action of the play, which may have been the intention of Marlowe, because, as a free thinker, he would have wanted the audience to begin to question their beliefs and their religion.

Whereas, today, although there are still stages which project in to the audience, like the Crucible, it is not as common as it would have been during Marlowe's day. The style of stage could possibly (although this is a long shot) affect the way in which Faustus is interpreted, as the distance between the stage and the audience will cause a modern day audience to feel less involved compared to during Marlowe's time and so don't become as caught up in Faustus action's and cause them to question their beliefs. I did say it was a long shot because people will interpret it differently because we have very different beliefs to 500-600 years ago and so the play won't be as controversial, rather than it being down to the stage but hey ho, I'd already started typing it.

The 3 main forms of symbolism on stage is:
 -Clothing
 -Props
 -Above (raised platform, area of the stage)

Clothing and Props are, truthfully, kind of obvious ones. The clothes the character is wearing and the objects they are either holding or using will create different interpretations and meanings, as they can show the wealth and status of a character as well as showing what is unfolding or about to unfold in the play. During the Marlowe's time, the clothes for characters would have been mostly donated by aristocrats.

The less obvious out of the three is the Above, however, when it was explained to us in class it made the most sense. Above refers to either a raised platform or even a balcony, just an area of the stage which is higher than the rest. It can create symbolism as placing a certain character on a elevated part of the stage can represent or symbolise or show their status and wealth, like props and clothes can, or it could even suggest they are possibly spirits or ghosts. However, when you read plays a stage direction may say "[ blah enters from above]" and therefore the character arrives from above or is above, so it can be symbolic or literal.

All 3 the factors mentioned above would be key or vital to a play when Marlowe was alive because the stage(s) were often bare. This meant that the audience would learn more from the way the character was dressed, stood and holding compared to what was the on the stage with the character.

We looked at a possible example of how Faustus could be presented in Act 1.1, where the Good Angel and the Bad Angel try to persuade and talk to Faustus. We were asked to draw out the stage in which we thought this scene should be presented to the audience. Like it would have been during Marlowe's time, I kept the stage bare apart from a bookshelf and a chair which were in a far corner of the stage. I included these because I thought it would help show further Faustus intellect but because they were at the far side of the stage in a corner I thought it would also show that he has started to turn his back on studying traditional forms of well studying. Then I had Faustus in the centre of the stage and had to slightly elevated stages just behind him, basically in line with each shoulder and an Angel would be on each stage, separated. One would be in all black the other in all white and Faustus in normal get up. Plain and simple. Faustus would not turn to either of the angels, wouldn't approach them or acknowledge them, however he would walk from one to the other to show his indecision.

Done.

Passion Play.

A passion play is a dramatic presentation depicting the Passion of Jesus Christ: his trial, suffering and death. It is a traditional part of Lent in several Christian denominations, particularly in Catholic tradition. The plays have their origin in the Easter Play which was born out of church ritual. The first passion play was performed in Latin in the 13th Century.

Frankenstein.

So I've finally gotten round to blogging about the novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley.

I knew Frankenstein quite well before I read the book and to be honest, it kind of ruined the novel for me. Don't get me wrong, it is still a good book but when you know what happens then it's not as fun to read. The only time it is good to know what happens in a book is Harry Potter because no matter it is still a good read.
So yeah, unlike The Bloody Chamber and Doctor Faustus I was a bit reluctant to read it because I already knew what was going to happen, however, a few things did still surprise me.

Everyone pretty much knows the story of Frankenstein but I'm going to blog about it anyway. So, Victor Frankenstein creates a monster, as he is obsessed with bringing people back to life and basically being God. He hates his creation so much and quickly regrets what he has done. His monster disappears somewhere and kills Frankenstein's little brother, Victor returns home. Justine is killed and he feels guilty. He meets the monster who tells him about his life for the past year or so and ask Frankenstein to make him a companion. Frankenstein goes to England and starts making the monster a friend but then destroys it. Monster see's and kills Victor's friend Henry. Frank is then imprisoned for this murder, but he is then let out. Goes home, marries Elizabeth. She dies on their wedding night. Frank's dad dies a little while later. Frank chases the monster to somewhere cold, struggles and dies on board a ship where he had told them his story. Monster is distraught at this and basically drowns himself or freezes to death. So yeah, its a very happy story fully of happy moments!

Now time for the real point of the blog! What I thought about it.

Overall I enjoyed the novel, I was just a little reluctant to read it at the start because I already knew the story and so was a little unenthusiastic because I felt there was little left to learn and discover. However, I was wrong!

One of the main factors which I really liked about Frankenstein was how it was told from different characters, there were the letters at the beginning, then of Frankenstein and then of the monster etc. I especially liked when the monster was retelling his year since he had left Frankenstein. I found this particularly interesting because it helped show how the monster became the way he was and how the solitude and rejection lead to him becoming resentful of humans. I felt it helped show a more human side to the monster and furthered the corruption of Frankenstein's actions. Truthfully, my favourite line from the novel was "I am malicious because I am miserable". It feels as if the monster isn't trying to justify his actions but explain them instead - he wants the suffering to stop.

One thing which surprised me in the novel was how much time passed, I'm not surely entirely how much time passed in the novel but I think it was near ten years. I don't whether Shelley was trying to show how long Frankenstein had to live in fear and misery over what he had done and his losses or whether she is trying to show the extent of the suffering which the monster had to receive. Additionally, I noticed that on every letter in the novel there was a day, e.g. 11th September however the year was left off, "17-", I'm not entirely sure as to why Shelley did this, part of me feels she might have done this to make the story have a more timeless feeling, suggesting that this sort of corruption could occur at any point in history, however, part of me doubts this because the century was still included. Oh well, I'll have to research it and find out.

Oh, one thing I thought about when reading the novel was the effect Frankenstein's mother's death had on him. I always, when we were watching the movie, assumed that Frankenstein created the monster because he wanted to be like God, he wanted to be able to make people immortal. However, I now also feel the loss of his mother would have had an effect on Frankenstein and therefore could have been a possible cause, as well as wanting to be known for achieving the impossible and such a medical feat, for creating the monster as the loss of his mother suddenly would have shaken and upset him and so maybe he feared death and feared the loss of his loved ones - I felt this was shown when Frankenstein thought about death, there was a quote about worms eating the flesh and how it disgusted him.

Anyway, yeah, it was a good novel and I much prefer the tale of Frankenstein now because I wasn't really a fan of the adaptations, I felt the story of the monster's past (sort of) helped create a back story to the monster and therefore helps create sympathy for him and show further how corrupt Frankenstein's actions were.

What is the audience supposed to think of Faustus...now?

**UPDATE** (on my previous blog of the same title)

We started going over Act 1 Scene 1 today in class and we were told to blog on how we now think the audience are supposed to think about Faustus. Before we went to the beginning of Act 1 Scene 1 I blogged about how I thought the chorus suggested for the audience to reserve their judgement of Faustus. However, I also suggested that they might feel sympathetic of the character Faustus because it was implied or suggested that their could be a downfall for him and that maybe we can't control what happens to us e.g. him.

Anyway, I now feel the audiences perception of Faustus will have completely changed. There were, now I look back on it (Prologue), hints of what I'm about to suggests.This is going to be in either note or chatty form because I'm too tired to do a complete essay style blog.

I now feel the audience is supposed to view Faustus as an arrogant, self-important and almost selfish character, as Scene 1 suggests that he turns down respected professions, such as law and medicine, because he cannot gain from them. Faustus views Law as "paltry legacies" which is "too servile and illiberal" for him and doesn't want to become a doctor (medically) because he has completed it, "hast thou not attained that end". I believe this would make Faustus appear arrogant and selfish to the audience because it suggests that if there is nothing to gain, power wise, from the profession then why would he do it? He wants to become a "deity" and not be controlled.

However, this could also make the audience sympathise/ feel sympathy for Faustus as it appears the audience, especially when it comes to religion and divinity, appear to have a better understanding of each subject compared to an intelligent man. This is shown through Faustus response to having a profession in divinity, as he suggests there is a Catch-22 element to it, "if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, why then belike we must sin and so consequently die". I believe this will create sympathy towards Faustus from the audience because it suggests that he has a limited and naive view of religion, as many will believe that Jesus can save them and therefore they are not doomed.

The audience may believe that Faustus is arrogant because he wants to be, and believes he can be greater than "Emperors and Kings" and not restricted like they are by their "several provinces". Faustus want of being greater than "Emperors and Kings" will be significant to the audience because during the Elizabethan times, the time in which Marlowe wrote the play, it was believed that the King, or the Queen, was chosen by God and was therefore of the highest power behind the Pope (depending on religion and form of religion) and God. Therefore, Faustus' belief and want of being greater than a King will make him appear arrogant to the audience because he is suggesting he can change and defy God's choices.

Another factor which I personally feel makes Faustus looks like a arrogant character is because he refers to himself in the third person, "settle thy studies, Faustus". I believe this would make the audience believe Faustus is arrogant because even men of great power, whether social, political or religious, don't refer to themselves in third person.

However, others may not agree with this view as it could be argued that Faustus is only referring to him self in third person, not because he is full or arrogance and self-importance, but because he is a rational man and he is trying to gain a different, almost outside perspective/opinion of his dilemma and therefore reinforces the belief or opinion of Faustus intelligence.

Faustus also appears to at one point mock religion because after picking up a book of divinity he laughs, "Ha" and so I believe this would suggest to the audience that Faustus believes he is above the law and belief of religion and can therefore laugh at it because he doesn't believe in its importance and significance and so furthers the sense of arrogance around Faustus. (Sorry that was badly explained!)

However, this could also be Marlowe's opinion of religion being mirrored or reflected through the character of Faustus as Marlowe was an atheist and believed in people questioning religion and the bible. Additionally, there is a stage direction for when Faustus "[picks up the book of magic]", whereas when he picked up a book on divinity there was no stage direction included and so I believe it reinforces the idea that Marlowe, and therefore the character of Faustus,  is trying to mock religion and show that he believes there are other more important books than the bible or that of "divinity".

I also believe the audience will now feel Faustus has an obsession with power as the qualities he most desires are "Of power, of honour, of omnipotence." Faustus desire of becoming omnipotent will be most significant to the audience as it was believed that God was omnipotent (had unlimited power) and so the audience may believe that the character Faustus is, for lack of a better word, power hungry.

**One thing I realised I hadn't mentioned for some reason about the audiences perception of Faustus from the Prologue is that he is intelligent man - I sort of mentioned it through the mention of his possible downfall, but yeah, mention of "he profits in divinity", "shortly graced with a doctors name" etc, implies Faustus is a man of intelligence and academia. **

So, as you can see it appears my opinion of what the audience are supposed to see Faustus has almost completely changed. I believe they are now meant to see that he is arrogant (therefore presents a possible fatal flaw?) and power hungry. He has remained intelligent and I still believe the audience is supposed to feel sympathy for Faustus, however it is now for different reasons.

Done!

What was the audience supposed to think of Faustus?

Personally I think you should stop reading this now and go and find some other blog because I can certainly promise you a terrible blog. Just don't bother. Stop.

What was the audience supposed to think of Faustus? 

I started answering this question in class, albeit terribly, after we had finished reading the Prologue of the A text of Doctor Faustus. Here is what I wrote, it is terrible.

I believe Marlowe wants the audience to reserve their judgements of Faustus and his actions and possibly sympathise or even empathise with the character. Marlowe achieves this by using the chorus to suggest to the audience to "patient judgements we appeal our plaud" which therefore suggests they should keep an open and possibly unprejudiced mind towards the character and the play.

I also believe Marlowe implemented this idea further  to the audience (of reserving judgement on Faustus) by causing them to question whether the lines of good and bad are as straight forward as they believe and are taught. The reference to "heavens conspired to overthrow" suggests that even those who are perceived and believed to be of the purest kind can make mistakes and commit acts of evil and wrong doing. This therefore suggests to the audience that any condemnation towards Faustus should be reserved as almost anyone could be tempted and commit sins.

However, others may believe that Marlowe wanted the audience to question their beliefs in God rather than reserve their judgements on Faustus because Marlowe was a known atheist and is suggesting or implying that God and heaven related beings can be as corrupt and evil as the Devil.

Furthermore, I believe the audience is supposed to sympathise the character of Faustus as the chorus/prologue includes a simple detail of his upbringing and hints at a possible demise. The audience is told of how Faustus is "born of parents base of stock" yet he "shortly was graced with doctor's name" but became "glutted". A downfall is not mentioned, just hinted and so leaves a question as to whether there is one. However, I feel Marlowe included this detail to create a sense of sympathy in the character because a man of such greatness and potential can lose it all through one "glutted" mistake or decision.

Finally, I feel Faustus' simple upbringing and start creates further sympathy for the character from the audience as it makes him the 'every man', and suggests to the audience that this mistake which Faustus made could happen to anyone, not just people who are of greater social standing.

*I also believe Marlowe is trying to hint to the audience that only so much temptation can be thrown at a man, or a woman, before they can't resist any longer and can therefore happen to anyone.

So, if you've read that you are probably regretting it because it was so badly written, which I know it was, but I honestly struggled to write a decent and well written answer to that for some reason, so sorry!

Why was there tension between Catholics and Protestants in Elizabethan times?

Here comes a little bit of my History knowledge, helped a little by Google, coming your way!

So, why was there tension between Catholics and Protestants in Elizabethan times? 

Well, Queen Elizabeth I was a Protestant, her elder sister Queen Mary had been a catholic. Before Elizabeth came to power, her sister had been trying to convert the country of England back to Catholicism, which had been the country's main religion before the Henrican Reformation, caused by, you guessed it Henry VIII. 

Anyway, there was tension between the two forms of religion because the Catholics followed the Pope whereas the Protestants rejected him as their spiritual leader. Additionally, Catholics felt that the church and his people, e.g. the Pope etc, could grant them salvation whereas the Protestants believed the only way of achieving salvation was through a direct relationship between themselves and God. 

Basically, Protestants and Catholics are the same form of religion, Christianity, but, they believe in different ways of showing their support and devotion to God and felt the way of the other religion was wrong and therefore shouldn't be followed. 

The Bloody Chamber, again.

So, I managed to blog about the majority of the short stories in The Bloody Chamber yesterday but, I still have a few remaining and so here it goes.

On to the Lady Of The House Of Love, I quite liked this one because at times it felt a little like Sleeping Beauty, very loosely, but with vampires! One factor which stood out the most to me, and I felt represented the characters pain the most was the caging of the larks and how she found pleasure and maybe even happiness through it because she herself is caged. I also liked how Clark presented the soldier, I felt he provided a stark contrast to other characters/voices from other stories, most notably The Werewolf , as he appeared to have no fear of the gothic and the supernatural because he did not believe in it, whereas the narrative in The Werewolf suggests that many people had a heightened fear of the supernatural.  

Next up is The Werewolf, this one was quite short, only about 2 and a half pages. Out of the tales which were similar to Red Riding Hood this was my favourite as I like how Clark portrayed the Grandmother. I personally like Clark's idea of making and presenting the Grandmother as a witch as in the traditional tale the Grandmother was presented as the frail old woman who couldn't protect herself from the wolf and so the twist of the Grandma being the wolf was quite an interesting spin compared to the classic.

Another factor which I liked in the story was Clark's use of detail when describing and showing the superstition people felt century's ago and how flimsy the claims were, "discover a witch - some old witch whose old cheese ripens when her neighbours do not, another whose black cat, oh sinister!, follows her about." I felt the narrative suddenly had a mocking and sarcastic tone to it, which I felt helped show further how scared people really were of magic.

The penultimate story, The Company of Wolves was another Red Riding Hood related tale. I felt this one fitted the traditional tale of Red Riding Hood, as the wolf disguised himself as the Grandmother. However, the ending was entirely different and not what I expected. She ended up getting into bed with the wolf. Standard, you know. I found Clark's presentation of the wolves interesting and I feel it helped Clark insert a feeling or a theme of feminism into the story. The narrative starts the story by telling us "the wolf is carnivore incarnate and he's as cunning as he is ferocious", whereas by the end, we are told the wolf is "tender". I feel this suggests that maybe wolves are not as fearful as first perceived and that if women stood their ground and became "cunning and ferocious" then wolves, (and men as well) would not be as dominant/ dominating.

Part of me did wonder whether the wolf-man idea was meant to be symbolic of anger and possibly describing how men want to control but they themselves need to be controlled and put in place. However, I soon realised it wasn't because there was the description of wolves and their eyes which "shine like golden flame" at the beginning of the story which I had forgotten about and therefore suggests that a wolf is not symbolic of anger but actually is a wolf.

I also found out that The Company of Wolves was turned in to a little movie and so I might give it a watch and see whether it is true to the tale.

The final short story from The Bloody Chamber is Wolf-Alice. This is a story all about how a girl called Alice had her life flipped and turned upside down, and I'd like to take a minute of you just sitting right there and tell you how she became a wolf...yeah I couldn't make it rhyme. Ah well. But anyway, the story is about a human feral girl who is raised by wolves, sound familiar?

http://listverse.com/2008/03/07/10-modern-cases-of-feral-children/

Anyway, I found Wolf-Alice to be an interesting character because she appears to be the polar opposite to the other female characters in Clark's story because she starts off as a beast and inhumane and then becomes or regains her humanity slightly, but still remains a beast. Whereas other characters, like The Tigers Bride, were human but begin to accept their animal and beastly side, or in The Werewolf, the Grandmother and the wolf are one. One final note, the c word is used once more.

One thing I forgot to mention about The Bloody Chamber and thought I would add in here instead of in the first blog is the role reversal and the irony. I liked how the mother and therefore the woman became the saviour and defeated man because the story felt as if it was set during a time when society was very patriarchal and traditional. I liked the irony of how the husband, the Marquis, was killed by a women who killed him with his own gun. Effectively, his weapon killed him.

And that is all for now, I'll blog about Doctor Faustus and Frankenstein at some point over the weekend. Woo. Yeah. Fun.

The Bloody Chamber.

Part of our homework over the summer was to not only read our selected texts which we are going to be studying over the next summer but, to also blog about our thoughts before, during and after the novels/texts/short stories.

I thought I would start with The Bloody Chamber. Truthfully, I didn't really have many thoughts before I read  The Bloody Chamber and other short stories - this however, intrigued me more and made me want to read it. Whereas, I found with another novel, Frankenstein, I was not as eager because I already knew the basic story of the novel and therefore meant there was little left to discover and read in the novel.

One of my first thoughts about The Bloody Chamber (the short story - not the entire book) was that it felt like a mixture of Rebecca with a hint of, dare I say it, 50 Shades of Grey. Within the first few pages I found a fair few comparisons between the main men of Rebecca and The Bloody Chamber. Both men had past wives, although there were 3 in The Bloody Chamber compared to just Rebecca in Rebecca. All wives had died suddenly and in a mysterious way, there was also a hint, or a feeling, that the husbands had contributed to the death of, if not killed, their wives. Which, they both had done in the end. Furthermore, both men seemed to want a younger, or a young wife compared to their past wives and someone who didn't have the confidence or knowledge compared to their deceased wives.

It wasn't only the men which helped me draw comparisons between the two stories, the head of maids of the houses in both the stories appeared to hate the "new wife" and weren't welcoming to the new lady of the house. Furthermore, both stories consisted of a grand house which was apart from the village and the rest of the world. The 'castle' in The Bloody Chamber however, was far more gothic than Manderley in Rebecca as the "castle lay at the very bosom of the sea" and "cut of from land for half a day" hints and shows how isolated the new wife became from the world.

The wives also appeared to be very similar at the start of the story, as both wives didn't feel worthy of their husbands and felt overshadowed and plain compared to their predecessors. However, as The Bloody Chamber progressed, the theme of feminism began to enter the story as it was the woman (the mother) who beat the man, whereas the second "Mrs De Winter" became stronger, she still doted upon her husband (which considering he wasn't as psychopathic as the Marquiss was in The Bloody Chamber is more understandable).

I should probably quickly explain about my 50 Shades of Grey comment. The short story does contain some eroticness and uses the c-word and so for a modern day comparison, it was an obvious.

Before I quickly rap up my blog about the short story and write about the other ones, I'll mention one of the main factors which I liked about this short story. I found the last line interesting "because it spares my shame." I find this particularly interesting because I don't feel the character has anything to be ashamed about, she was a young innocent woman who was not only abused by her husband but society (as were many women back in the days of the patriarchal society and view of not just children but women being seen but not heard.) I also liked how she and the blind man fell in love as it shows that people should be accepted for who they are, not what they are and how they look.

Now I'll quickly write about the other short stories. My favourite out of all the stories in The Bloody Chamber was the "The Courtship of Mr Lyon" - I felt this was told in a very clever way. Usually, when I think of Beauty and the Beast I think of a man who shunned human life and resented all humans because he wasn't one any more and was therefore cruel and horrible to any human who crossed his path. Don't get me wrong, Mr Lyon does get rid of all human life but he doesn't hate on humans, he does a good deed and helps those who are in need - even though he does want something in return if they do a foot wrong. I feel it humanises the Beast.

I also like how Clark has shown that no human is perfect. In the traditional tale of Beauty and the Beast, the Beast was a vain and narcissistic man, and so was punished for this, whereas every other character was normal, maybe even slightly angelic. However, in "The Courtship of Mr Lyon" we see how Beauty, when she is gifted with wealth becomes ever so slightly selfish and vain, she becomes less caring about those around her - she becomes, as it says "petulant". I like how Clark has portrayed Beauty in this way because it shows that the Beast is not as terrible as first perceived, I feel the author is suggesting that anyone, man or woman can be seduced by wealth and greed and can forget about who gave it to them.

Finally, I loved the mention of how Mr Lyon's garden was "still possessed by December" because I feel it shows the Beasts entrapment and was symbolic of how he felt when Beauty left, like all life and love had left him and so he felt cold and empty and dead.

The third story was the Tigers Bride, I was not as keen on this story when I compared it to The Courtship of Mr Lyon, the ending reminded me of Shrek because instead of the Beast becoming human, the woman becomes a beast as well, kind of like Princess Fiona staying as an Ogre. One thing I did like about the story was how it played on the theme of corruption and greed and showed how women were often objectified and perceived as possessions (and used and given away like one) by their fathers and by the male gender in general.

Puss in Boots was just funny, I found the sometimes sarcastic narration from the cat hilarious and I found it to be quite a light hearted story compared to the others. Even though the story is one of entrapment and death I found it quite funny. I felt the story was not as traditional gothic in the same sense as The Bloody Chamber because the narration from the cat added comedic qualities to the story.

Truthfully, I think I need to read The Erl-King again, I am still unsure about the story being told and how it could relate to a gothic theme. I mean there is the obvious entrapment of the bird-women in cages against their will and their singing is actually their weeping, but I just don't feel it is as clear in its purpose and story as the other short stories in the novel and so I'll probably blog on that one a little later when I'm more certain about it.

Next up is the Snow Child which is just wrong and Ew and no and just a no go. I feel Clark plays on Freud's Oedipus complex or whatever it is called, where the mother is jealous of the daughter and vice versa and views her as a threat. However, the little bit which is just Ew and wrong and gross is clearly not needed, I personally don't feel it adds anything to the story.

I'm going to blog about the remaining short stories tomorrow because it is late and I don't really have the energy to blog about the remaining stories properly and so I shall do them tomorrow because I only have two lessons tomorrow, wahoo! So I'll have more time tomorrow to quickly finish this blog. Hope you enjoyed the long 14 paragraphs, mwahahahaha.

A Level Gothic Authors.

So I've recently finished reading my A2 level English Literature books and thought I should do a quick background check and blog on the authors of the 3 novels/plays/short stories I've just read.

The first, and most probably famous, of my texts, is Frankenstein by Mary Shelley (1818 text).

Mary Shelley:

Mary Shelley was born on the 30th August 1797 and died on February 1st 1851.
She is best known for her gothic novel Frankenstein.
Her husband was called Percy Bysshe Shelley, and she, on occasions, edited and promoted her husbands work as her husband was a famous romantic poet and philosopher.
Her farther was political philosopher William Goodwin.
Her mother was a protestant and feminist Mary Wollstonecraft.
She also wrote Valperga (1823) and The Last Man (1826).  
She died at the age of 45. She died in her sleep, due to what her physician assumed was a brain tumour.
Shelley was only 19 when she wrote and completed Frankenstein.
The idea of Frankenstein came to Mary Shelley as the result of a ghost story contest between Mary, her husband, the poet Lord Byron and Dr Jon Polidori. It came to her in a dream.

Many people have also found it quite ironic how Mary Shelley's fiction scientist Victor Frankenstein found his name forever fused with the name of his creation and how Mary Shelley is now forever associated with her greatest creation; her novel Frankenstein.

Now on to my next author, Angela Carter, who wrote several short stories, her most famous being The Bloody Chamber.

Angela Carter:

Angela Carter was an English novelist and journalist.
She is most commonly known for her feminist and magical realism works.
In 2008, The Times ranked Carter 10th in their list of "The 50 Greatest British Writers since 1945".
During her childhood Angela Carter was evacuated as a child to live in Yorkshire with her maternal grandmother.
She battled anorexia when she was a teenager.
She studied English Literature at Bristol University and then became a fellow in creative writing at Sheffield University.
She married twice, first in 1960 to Paul Carter, she used the proceeds from her Somerset Maugham Awards to leaver her husband and relocate for two years to Tokyo, Japan.
The Bloody Chamber was written in 1979 along with her influential essay The Sadeian Woman and the Ideology of Pornography, which hints about her ideas behind the message in The Bloody Chamber.
She died in February 1992.

And for my final author, it is none other than Christopher Marlowe, who created the play, Doctor Faustus.

Christopher Marlowe: 

He was born in 1564 and died in 1593.
His father was a shoemaker.
He was educated at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.
He was a dramatist, translator and a poet.
Some of his most famous plays and books were: Doctor Faustus and Tamburlaine the Great.
There is great mystery surrounding the death of Marlowe. A warrant was issued by the Church's Star Chamber for the poet's arrest on charges of heresy, which carried the death penalty, but, before Marlowe faced the interrogation and possible torture, he died.
His plays were produced to great acclaim by the Lord Admiral's company.
He also mixed with the dramatists and actors of the day. such as Shakespeare, Edward Alleyn and Nashe.
Many believe he influenced Shakespeare, however, this has not been proven conclusively.

I'll be blogging over the next week or so about the texts I've just read because if I started tonight I would not finish. So yeah, over the next week I'll blog about the texts I've read for my Eng Lit course.