Great Works I: Remixing Memory

The Othello adaptation was great success in my eyes. It was amazing to actually visualize the play with our eyes instead of just reading it. One key difference between the play and the adaptation was the sex, in the actual play; Desdemona and Othello never consummated their marriage. This I believe is a better interpretation than the original play. In the original text, Othello could’ve just had sex with Desdemona to see if she’s pure as she claims. If she had bleed after they had sexual intercourse, than that would’ve ultimately proved her loyalty and pureness. But Othello is an irrational individual who does not use basic logic and never seems to have had sex with Desdemona. I feel as if the name of this play should’ve been “Iago” instead of “Othello’, the entire story is about Iago the evil envious villain that manipulates individuals. It’s extraordinary the way Iago plants the seeds of doubt in Othello’s head, which causes him to be suspicious and jealous of Cassio which therefore causes him to be mentally unstable, ultimately leads him to murdering his innocent wife Desdemona and committing suicide. Iago is by far the most villainous character we’ve encountered in all of our readings, it’s truly astonishing how he gets away with all those things. Overall this adaptation was a great, it made more sense than the actual original play.

In Act 2 scenes I-II, while waiting for the ship to arrive, this when lago, Cassio Emilia, Desdemona, and Roderigo are all chatting. Iago starts to generalize and starts to badmouth/criticize all women, saying they’re all lying, deceptive and lustful creatures. “Come on, come on; you are pictures out of doors, saints in injuries, devils being offended, Players In your housewifery, and housewives in your beds” (Act 2 scene 1). It’s interesting somewhat compelling how much of a deceptive, envious individual Iago’s is, he later on comes up with an elaborate plan to make Othello think that Cassio in sleeping with his wife. Iago uses Cassio’s simple holding of Desdemona hand, against him. “You say true; t is so, indeed; if such tricks as these strip you out of your lieutenantry, it had been better you had not kissed your three fingers so oft. Which now you again you are the most apt to play sir in” (Act 2 scene 1). It seem Iago is somewhat jealous of Cassio’s position and rank, he might be jealous that Cassio got promoted to a higher rank before him. Iago in my mind is a great villain; it’s extraordinary how he plots and gets away with certain things. Later on he succeeds in convincing Roderigo that Desdemona is an adulterous, lustful women that is sleeping with Cassio. “Now sir, this granted- as it a most pregnant and unforced position- who stands so eminently in the degree of this fortune as Cassio does? A knave mere form of civil and humane seeming, for the better compassing of his salt and most hidden loose affection? The knave is handsome, young and hath all those requisites in him that folly and green minds look after a pestilent complete knave” (Act 2 Scene 1). It’s remarkable how Iago doesn’t have to really do much to persuade individuals to what he wants; he’s a very manipulative/ deceptive person, which I find very interesting for some odd reason.

This is my favorite piece of art from the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It’s an Incense burner of Amir Saif al-Din Muhammad al-Mawardi from Iran, Seliuq period (1040-1196), dated A.H 577/A.D 1181-82. It just really caught my attention, a zoomorphic incense burner shaped like lion right in the middle of the room. There was a great deal of information written in Arabic engraved on the exterior. From the information provided; this incense burner’s head is removable so coal and incense can be placed inside it and the neck is pierced so that the scented smoke can escape.

The other collections of Islamic art in the museum were extremely captivating; the artists did a phenomenal job of paying close attention to detail. Most of the artwork (the carpets) had amazing designs; there were a lot of weird patterns made with different shapes. I have an Islamic cultural background, there were many tablets and large books there with writings with verses from the Quran, so I found that very interesting all the different medium’s individuals used for writing Quran verses on. I had eye-opening experience walking through the Islamic art exhibit.

The Arabian Nights is very similar to the Islamic art collection; the stories are very complicated and somewhat difficult to understand. Much like the artwork you really need pay close attention to the details in order to fully understand what you’re looking at/reading.

It’s very interesting that all these poems translated, have different interpretations. If you look closely at them, the poem named The River-Merchant’s Wife A Letter by Ezra Pound was translated in 1915 does not seem to have a lot of context than a poem translated later on such as A Song of Ch’and Kan written by Witter Bynner in 1929. In The River-Merchant’s Wife A letter the author states “Two Small people without dislike or suspicion “, I believe that this can be interpreted in many ways. If you look at A Song of Ch’and Kan the author interprets this as, “Both of us young and happy-hearted”. The lines right after just really stood out to me, the two couples seemed to be happy at first but than once they got married when she was fourteen, she suddenly became unhappy, “I never laughed, being bashful”. My question is what caused her to become downhearted right after the marriage. If you continue on reading, in the poem written by Witter Bynner he states, “At fifteen I straightened my brows and laughed, leaning that no dust can ever seal our love, that even unto death I would await you by my post and would never lose heart in the silent watching”. This leaves me to conclude that they were simply having a rough time in their youthful relationship. Later on as you continue reading, in the poem The River-Merchant’s wife A Letter the author states, “At sixteen you departed, you went into far Ku-t[]-en, the river of swirling eddies”. In the other poem A Song of Ch’and Kan the author states, “Through the Gorges of Ch’u-t’ang, of rock and whirling water”. There’s a difference between the places within the two interpretations. If you look at the interpretation by Shigeyoshi Obata, he also uses a different place “Keu-Tang Gorge”. The version I like the most is A Song of Ch’and Kan interpreted by Witter Bynner. The reason why I like it the most is because it’s written in way that’s really easy to comprehend. The author did a phenomenal job.

http://library.artstor.org.remote.baruch.cuny.edu/library/secure/ViewImages?id=8zZXajAhOy81MUA7eD94QHssXnwp&userId=hD1AfDwu&zoomparams=

The image I selected is titled, “Battle against Ravana”. It is illustrating a battle scene. The battle according to the description seems to be between the two opposing forces. God Vishnu in the guise of the son Kind Rama, defeats (with the help of the monkey king Hanuman) the demon king Ten-Headed Ravana. The artist draws the two forces nearly about to clash, on the left side, this is where God Vishnu is sitting on what seems to be a rock and holding a bow. On his side, all the soldiers are monkey’s, using trees from the ground as weapons. On the other side there are creatures with horns in all different shapes and colors riding on horses, with their leader (Ten-Headed Ravana) riding alongside them on a chariot. The artist places him right in the middle of his men, on an elevated platform showing his importance. This illustration is clearly demonstrating action, since they’re right in the middle of a major battle. What stood out the most to me was what the artist painted on the top-left corner, the soldiers (the monkeys) from the King Rama side have their backs against the battle and they seem as if they’re fleeing the scene.

In the book, right in the beginning the author R.K. Narayan talks about Ravana stating, “The Ten-headed Ravana and his brothers have acquired from us extraordinary powers through austerities and prayers, and now threaten to destroy our worlds and enslave us. They go on along recklessly in their career of tranny, suppressing all virtue and goodness wherever found” (4). This explains why the there’s a battles going on in the image I selected, one side wants to completely annihilate the other. Also in the book the author explains why God Vishnu’s army consists of monkeys, Ravana was cursed in earlier times to expect defeat/ destruction only from a monkey (5). This clearly shows that the images that we viewed are not just images, there are many interpretations embedded within them.

The passages I found most compelling were all from Book 10, starting from page 234 to 248. Odysseus and his men land on the island of Aeaean , the home of Circe the nymph with the lovely braids. “The true sister of murderous-minded Aeetes. Both were bred by the sun who lights our lives; their mother was Perse, a child the Ocean bore. Who is Aeetes and Perse? Will they show up later in this book? On page 237 passage 230, Odysseus’s men later discover the nymph Circe’s palace, as they walk through the front ground on the palace they encounter all the beasts that Circe bewitched. The men were clearly frightened, why did they continue to progress into her palace? Wouldn’t it be logical just to walk the other way, and try to get away from the place as soon you possibly can? Were they put under a spell as well, the moment they stared walking on the ground surrounding her palace? Is that the reason why they continued to move forward? Once Odysseus and his men proceed into her palace, Circe makes them sit and gives them a potion to erase all their memories of their past experiences and turned them in pigs. (238). Odysseus then goes to save his men from the nymph; on the way there he encounters Hermes (the giant-killer), who gives him a potent drug to help shield Odysseus from Circe’s witchcraft (239). I find it very interesting how some gods are there to assist Odysseus and others are just completely against him and want him to suffer. Then on page 240, after Circe tries to enchant Odysseus and fails, she asks him to “mount my bed and mix in the magic work of love—we’ll breed deep trust between us”, this made no sense to me whatsoever, why is she asking him to have sex with her? Then later on all of Odysseus’s comrades stay with Circe for a year. This entire section of passages just puzzled me; this is why I found it so fascinating and compelling. It certainly invoked my interest, and raised many unanswered questions.

Athena gives a speech at Mount Olympus and pleads to the gods including Zeus on the behalf of Odysseus and Telemachus. She explains to them how Odysseus is held at the nymph Calypso’s house by force (153). Zeus sends Hermes, who the messenger of the gods, to the island of Calypso. He tells him “Announce to the nymph with lovely braids our fixed decree: but in the convoy of the gods or mortal men. No, on a lashed, makeshift raft and wrung with pains, on the twentieth day he will make his landfall, fertile Scheria, the land of Phaeacians”, This part really just stood out to me. Did Zeus just basically outline Odysseus future prospects? Once Hermes arrives at Calypso’s estate, he tells her to let go of Odysseus starts complaining about how the male gods get to keep mortal lovers, while the female gods are not. She is in a way forced to release him after Hermes states “Release him at once, just so. Steer clear of the rage of Zeus! Or down the years he’ll fume and make your life a hell” (157). Odysseus was in fact help captive without his will, “unwilling lover alongside lover all too willing…” (157). When Odysseus sits down to feast and converse with the goddess Calypso, he show’s of his loyalty (to his family/homeland) and his bravery, but then as the sun sets he goes back and sleeps with her. “Even as he spoke the sun set and the darkness swept the earth. And now, withdrawing into the cavern’s deep recesses, long in each other’s arms they lost themselves in love” (159). This small section right here completely threw me off, one minute Odysseus is sitting on the rocks and beaches, crying and wrenching his heart with sobs and groans and anguish (157) and next he’s sleeping with her one last time before he ventures off. This is telling me that he does love her, but he wants to return to his homeland more.

(The website is not letting me upload my image)

In the small passage of Phaedrus, Socrates comes up with a story about a god named Theuth. The inventor of many arts such as arithmetic, calculation and geometry, discovered something new called letters (writing things down). Theuth would go to Thamus (the king of the whole Upper Egypt) to show him his many inventions, hoping to get them approved so that the Egyptians can one day use them. Theuth believed that this new art of writing things down can make the people more wise and can cure forgetfulness. Thamus disagreed with that, he on the other hand believed that this new invention would create “forgetfulness in the learners soul, because people will stop using their memories and rely more on the written characters (96). I see what Plato is trying to convey by writing this is passage but I disagree; I believe that writing things down is a great thing. Writing things down on a piece of paper is way of an extended our brain. We are only limited to the amount of things we can hold in our minds. Much like an external hard drive, we can store ideas by writing them and reviewing them later on to recollect.

In the article “The Oral World vs. The Written Word”, the author Nicholas Carr further discusses the importance of literacy by stating, “the written word liberated knowledge from the bound of individual memory and freed language from the rhythmical formulaic structures required to support memorization and recitation. It opened to the mind broad new frontiers of thought and expression”(3). The article goes more in depth about oral culture and literacy and how we wouldn’t have oral cultures without writing being in the psyche. “Writing heightens consciousness”, during the time of Plato this heighten consciousness was only for the elite, later on it became more mainstream and once that occurred people found a new medium to pass down ideas to other individuals. It started from word of mouth, then to written word and now the Internet. There is a huge contradiction in Plato’s approach to this; he’s saying that writing is bad for the people, yet Plato himself is spreading his ideas by writing them down. Writing things down is in fact a great thing; it’s a great way to pass down your ideas to future generations. The reason why we’re even reading about this is because Plato decided to write down his thoughts.

The last article called “Is Google making us Stupid”, the author Nicholas Carr writes about how the affects of the Internet on our brains, and how it’s ultimately making us stupid. Based on all the references Nicholas has provided in the article I believe that his argument is in fact a strong one. The article discusses how many individuals such as Scott Karp, Bruce Friedman and the author himself have all confessed how they cannot seem to focus on reading long passages anymore, since they’ve increased their usage of the Internet. I myself would also have to confess, I too have a hard time reading long dull articles/books and I do in fact blame this on the heavy usage of the Internet. Nicholas states, “The internet an immeasurably powerful computing system, is subsuming most of our other intellectual technologies. It’s becoming our map and our clock, our printing press and our typewriter, our calculator and our telephone and our radio and TV” (4). I completely agree with Nicholas Carr, the Internet is in fact making the general population simpleminded. We’ve started to become so reliant on Internet, instead of remember things we end up just using Google for pretty much everything.