This is actually not my blog. It was something for school. I'm at bailamorena.livejournal.com.

More poems

Galatea

From stone to flesh
From cold to heat
I was immobile
Now I am immovable
I was born of a man,
like Dionysus, like Athena.
I am a goddess!
A goddess who sprung from stone
Sprung from the mind of a man
I turned hate into love
But dear readers, here is a secret
Pygmalion, my husband,
still keeps me on that pedestal
just to gaze at me. He squints his eye
tilts his head, then sighs. He is so proud
of his creation.

He has begun telling me where I should
lose weight. I am clay that he can shape
and scrape away.
My hands are falling off. They are so
useless. My skin is turning grey. I find
dust around me each morning. It is getting
harder to see.





The tormenting dragon

Count each breath. I will breathe fire
into your mind. Be calm. I will whip up
the water in the lake. Be the surface
of the lake. I will dive below and make bubbles
float to the surface. Be the bird on that branch
by the incense-storing temple. I will eat him for lunch.
Try to deny me in yourself and I will turn your skin
to scales. But realize that you are the beast and the
Boddhisatva, and I am the beauty and the monster.
We you I are one.

First few poems

Penelope

Patience is a virtue,
And so I am more virtuous than the gods
Yes I will be so bold to say it
because the gods took my husband away from me
sent him off to DesTroy to fight for
the glory of men
While the patience of women goes
unappreciated.
Oh Athena, I am sorry.
I do not mean to demean your honor
You are a weaver like me. You smote
Ariadne when she dared challenge you
Now that hapless weaver spins her creations
in corners, going unnoticed. or killed.
I am Ariadne now, left alone by the gods
abandoned by my husband, dead, alive,
or trapped in the embrace of a fire-haired enchantress

Athena, hear my plea. Weave strength into this worn-out cape
of patience. Weave your magic into my husband's journey
Thread by thread, bring him home to Ithaca.
Bind the suitors out of my life, unstitch their presence
from my home.


Daphne

Should this be my fate?
Birds resting in my hands,
rough bark where once there was smooth white skin
What can a maiden do when the sun chases her?
Did he not know he would burn me
with his music and his light and his beauty?
Fire cannot hold a girl. Fire will only incinerate
and turn me into Ash.
(That's my little joke.)

You have to change to fall in love
I ran and ran and then I froze
so I wouldn' t burn.
Apollo gazes down on me with affection
and my branches reach up to him
my leaves unfold like a thousand green hands
reaching out to him. I speak
through the wind. But he does not hear me.

Further deconstruction of the Pygmalion story

I had some interesting comments from Dr. Williamson and figured i should elaborate on my Pygmalion/Galatea analysis.

Clearly, there is no one way to analyze the situation there. I remember reading the scene in the Metamorphoses and being appalled at how Pygmalion explored and fondled Galatea while she was powerless and sleeping. But I suppose another way to look at it is that his creation came alive because he breathed love into it. This is a common theme for artists because if we are really serious, we fall in love with our creations. We breathe life into them and make them into real living breathing creatures. I suppose we could read that this is what Pygmalion does with Galatea.

Yet I still cannot shake my propensity towards Feminist theory, and there is so much here. This scene is like a precursor to Snow White or Sleeping Beauty, where the handsome prince "awakens" the beautiful stone/sleeping/dead princess with a kiss. Pygmalion is like the handsome prince opening his blushing bride's sexuality. What is interesting is that because Galatea is his creation, her sexuality *completely* belongs to Pygmalion. she is not like the other women with their "scandalous way of life" (line 242). It seems to me that Pygmalion does not have to worry that his creation will stray from him.

But then we get into other questions sort of like the questions one would ask while reading "Frankenstein." Is it ethical to create a sentient being? What about the morality of creating something that will love you but you don't have to love back? I often wonder what happens when or if Pygmalion ever gets tired of Galatea. I often wonder how pressured she might feel in being the perfect woman. Is it ever too high of a label to live up to?

Also, it really does seem like Galatea is the original object of the male gaze. She is subjected to the male gaze so much that she was *created* by it and she was *born* by it (It is interesting that in Greek mythology, there are many stories of men "giving birth" (in various ways)).

Just some interesting ideas to think about.

Project Idea

I have an idea for my creative project. I want to do a series of poems from the points of view of women characters in the readings.

I want to write about Penelope's patience, and also put that poem next to another poem I found about Penelope (an allegory to Penelope, at least)
I want to write a poem from the point of view of one of the goddesses, perhaps Athena.
I will write a poem from the point of view of Pygmalion's statue, Galatea. I was reading this section and was horrified at the implications. Pygmalion basically has sex with his sleeping statue/woman without her consent. It is basically a glamourized romanticized rape scene. How fitting that she is the statue, the first woman to be *shaped* and *created* BY the male gaze, not just always subjected to it. She is the definition of the male gaze. She is the created, not the subject. Always objectified. There is a lot of material there.
I think I will also do a poem from Antigone's point of view.

The poems by Catullus that we have been reading have been quite interesting. Perhaps a poem by his lover Lesbia would be really fitting, sort of an answer to his love serenades.

Sorry I have not updated in awhile. I will try to post more regularly.

The Aeneid

a. Issue

How should people respond to fate, and what are the consequences of accepting or rejecting the will of the gods?

b. conclusion

Mortals should submit themselves to their destiny as decried by the gods, because the gods have power over all lives.

alternate conclusion: Rome is a glorious nation with a rich and noble history; and this history legitimizes Rome’s empire now.

Meshing of the two? Rome is glorious because it was destined to be, and because the people who founded it followed their destiny.

c. reasons

The gods control everything. There is no free will

Jupiter/Jove is the most powerful of all the gods

The lesser gods try to control the world for their personal interest, but Jove’s will trumps it all.

Aeneas followed fate, even when it pained him to do so. he submitted to the will of the Gods. In reward for this, he founded Rome and was a glorious hero.

Dido, on the other hand, does not want to subordinate her own life to fate. Her desire makes her go crazy, and she kills herself.

The gods prophesied Rome’s inception; therefore, it is a noble empire

d. significant ambiguities

How do we define fate? Is it different than destiny, or are they just synonyms?

What is glory? How do we define the “good guys” and the “bad guys’ in a war? Is it all based on what the gods want?

e. value conflicts/assumptions

The biggest conflict seems to be between fate and free will. Should individuals follow their destiny or should they do what they want to do. Aeneas decides to follow his “destiny” instead of staying with Dido.

f. descriptive assumptions

Love is caused by the gods “smiting” humans with the feeling.

Gods have their favorite cities and their favorite people

The gods are just as petty, backbiting, and flawed as humans

Rome is a glorious nation and far more advanced than its predecessor

Women are prone to emotion and are irrational

g. logical fallacies

Lisa and I have never understood fate because there seems to be a flaw in the reasoning. Individuals are supposed to follow their destiny. But if they reject their destiny, wasn’t it fate that they did so? If everything is predestined, then it seems there is no reason to prescribe following fate. Fate, according to the definition given by Virgil, is like a puppetmaster. People have no choice about following it, so what is the logic behind telling them they should follow their fate?

There is a wishful thinking fallacy in Virgil’s history of Rome. Believing that Rome had this glorious history tied to mythology and the gods doesn’t make it so.

h. evidence

Virgil obviously has no proof of any existence of gods, but he’s sort of appealing to authority because the whole Roman culture believes in these gods, as well as Rome’s glory. Also, because people cannot always control their own lives, and because unexpected phenomena are always cutting in, the Romans took this as empirical evidence of the existence of gods. And these gods micromanaged everybody’s lives.

i. rival causes?

Pardon the French, but it might not be the gods controlling destiny. It might just be, “Shit happens.” Virgil assumes that every action or occurrence is the work of Jove, Venus, Juno or other gods, but it could be because of the decisions of humans or the natural play of events.

j. statistics

n/a

k. significant information omitted

There sort of is only one perspective shown, which is that of the dominant classes—the warriors, the kings, etc. We don’t hear much from the underdogs; the mortal women and the lower classes, especially, aren’t given voices.

l. reasonable conclusions

Based on Virgil’s reasoning, the conclusion he comes up with works in the context of this literary work. There is almost no other way to see it because he works the reasons and assumptions to suit his thesis.

II. What are the implications of this work for the core question or subsidiary questions?

Destiny is sacred. So, apparently, is a nation’s history. The history of Rome, in this book, is made to be sacred because it is connected with the sacredness of the gods. Because the gods wanted this city as their own, the city itself becomes sacred as well. It seems that the sacred is determined by whatever the gods like at the moment. They strike us as very fickle and selfish characters, and yet they determine what humans should worship and hold as important in their lives.

IV. How does this work connect to other things we have read in this unit or common readings or ideas we have talked about?

This is very similar to The Mists of Avalon, with the idea of fate controlling people’s lives. Morgaine, Igraine, and Aeneas are all asked to succumb their lives to the will of destiny. This causes much turmoil for all the characters, as they fight against what is supposedly “prescribed” for their lives.

We have also talked about the sacred as relating to more than just religion. Here, we see that. It isn’t necessarily the gods themselves that are the most sacred, but the destinies and histories that they create that become the focus of reverence. However, because the gods create these histories, it attaches the histories to religion. And it is the religious aspect that contributes to their sacredness.

V. What are some good questions about this work that might be explored?

Can you change your fate? If you try to change your fate, will you just end up fulfilling it? (I’m thinking Oedipus here) If you can’t change your fate, why bother try doing anything? I mean, it might give you a certain amount of comfort to know you don’t have to worry about making decisions.

The Greek and Roman religions were more about superstition than ethics. Offerings were made and homage was paid to honor the gods, but this was only to ensure good luck or a good life. You tried to please the gods because they controlled your life, and you wanted to appease them. It wasn’t necessarily tied to ethics or the kind of person you should be.

But today, all we see in religion is the ethical prescriptions. So when did this change? When did honoring the sacred change from just protecting yourself from the gods by pleasing them to trying to live your life ethically?

First Journal Entry: The Shift in Odysseus

When we, as modern readers, read the translated version of The Odyssey, we have to be careful not to project our own ideas of gender roles onto the characters and story that takes place in Ancient Greece. While it is true that much of the gender roles are similar to those we have experienced in twentieth and twenty-first century American society, there are differences that we must explore in the context of classical Greek society.

The traditional stereotypical view of masculinity today is equated with strength, agression, stoicism, bravery, adventurousness, etc. Basically, qualities of your typical "hero," your Superman or soldier.

Conversely, there are traits today that are supposed to be anathema to the idea of masculinity. These include humility, overuse of emotions, weakness, softness, fear, etc. Especially tears. We hear time and time again that "boys don't cry." To show such a breakdown of emotion is to show a fissure in the stone wall of one's manhood.

It seems from reading The Odyssey, however, that the Greeks saw it differently. Their view of masculinity was similar to ours in a few ways. Odysseus seems to be the perfect man; everybody in the book sings his praises. He is strong, intelligent, courageous, tenacious, a good fighter, sportsman, and sailor. It would seem, then, that these are all ideal qualities in a man.

However, there is another personality in Odysseus. He is humble before his gods, prostrating himself and sacrificing dutifully. He is also humble before his hosts, honoring them with compliments. He is never at a loss for social niceties. He knows the proper things to say when offered food and shelter. He knows how to behave as a guest in a stranger's home. These traits, while not necessarily looked down upon in our society, seemed to be more equated with the feminine role. This is one area where the Greek gender roles depart from ours. A man is not just strong; he is humble and knows when to bow.

The biggest difference, however, is the permission to cry. This poem is chock full of male tears. Every time one of Odysseus's shipmates dies, the crew weeps and sobs with abandon. When they are afraid, they cower and cry like children. When Odysseus hears his story sung by the Herodotus, he too weeps "like a woman." But these outbursts are not exactly frowned upon. They seem instead to be more natural. As Odysseus tells his story to his hosts, he mentions offhand time and again how afraid he and his crew were afraid, or mourned tearfully for their shipmates. Similarly, when Telemachus and Odysseus are reunited, they embrace each other, crying. Perhaps, the prescibed role for a man does not only encompass strength and ability, but also great emotion and humility. The Greeks saw themselves as supplicant to the gods - their lives were in the command of the immortals. Therefore, they had to be in constant subservience to them, showing their loyalty and awe. When misfortune fell upon them, I think it was their duty to show their devastation. If they remained stoic in the face of the gods' punishment, they might invite further pain. Also, when they were rewarded with good things -like a return home or a reunion, they gratefully and tearfully gave thanks to the gods.

It is in scenes like these where we see the shift in Odysseus. I think it is Homer's way of showing the readers the other side of a hero, the side that humbles himself before fate, the side that is not afraid to show his humanity and emotions.

I have completely changed my idea for a final project upon serendipitously discovering Mina Loy’s poem, “Mass-Production on 14^th Street.” I want to do an illustrated book version of this, incorporating modernist collage, montage and Dadaist poetry. This poem speaks to my Feminist Marxist leanings. It is full of weird diction and crisp phrases you just want to feel in your mouth over and over again. When I first read this poem, it screamed out to be illustrated. The descriptions are so ripe and peculiar that they need edgy and unsettling pictures to go with them. In my project, I hope to incorporate visual allusions to the other poets we have read earlier in class. Perhaps some pictures of Bach in a store window, or laborers digging on the storefront streets. I hope to illustrate the concepts of modernism that we have learned.

Zukofsky and Stein I think are worlds apart. I think Stein plays a lot with language more, and tries to break down language barriers. Stein's poems such as "patriarchal poetry" and "lifting belly," although they do last forever, like Zukofsky's "A," are not as coherent, shall we say, as Zukofsky's. I mean, i think they are just as valuable, (even though I'm not a big fan of Stein), but I think the point behind Stein's work is more focused on the repetition and the way she says "screw you" to conventional systems of syntax. Zukofsky stays a bit more within those boundaries.