Screw Ups

i had to make a comment about an idea from class on wed. If you're going to screw up, screw up big. i really like this idea, mostly because i know it's going to happen and already has happened, but somehow i don't think my grade will be so happy. nor the slave drivers... uh,... i mean, parents in my life either. but alas, que sera, sera... or something like that.

My Book and Heart Shall Never Part

"Froggy went a'courting, he did ride, uh huh. Froggy went a'courting, he did ride, uh huh. Froggy went a'courting, he did ride, sword and pistol by his side. Froggy went a'courting, he did ride, uh huh. He said, "Miss Mousey, would you marry me, uh huh?" He said, "Miss Mousey, would you marry me, uh huh?" He said, "Miss Mousey, would you marry me,..."

Yeah, i can't really remember the rest. but my dad used to sing that to me all the time when i was little.

any way, i was kind of surprised by how many of those stories i knew. but my parents did a lot of story telling to me so i really shouldn't be surprised.

now, the nature/theology thing. adam fell from eden because he ate the fuit from the tree of knowledge and learned things. so therefore, to me, it goes to say that humans can know and learn anything and everything about and from nature but, because we know so many of those things, we cannot be a part of nature any more. we cannot simply connect with nature the way the animals do. although i have to say that domesticated animals have difficulty being within nature as well, not to mention returning to it. like technology they have felt the touch of man and have learned from us. whether it be just stupid pet tricks, or forms of interspecies communication doesn't really matter. they are animals but no longer a true part of nature. there is also the idea of the half breed, such as half wolf half dog, too close to nature and too close to man. there are special licences( i think) you have to have in order to own a half wolf. mustang horses are an idea in the opposite, of going back to nature. they used to be tame centuries ago(and some still today) brought here from spain and let loose, they went back to nature. but they can be caught and tamed. maybe its a nature/nuture idea. actually, it probably is. but still, you don's see many tame crocodiles or hippos. you don't see many tame wolves or polar bears, or deer or elk, and especially tame antelope. i suppose it might also come downto the strength of the instinct of the animal. man has spent millenia tameing the domesticated dog, the cat has from around ancient egypt, so about 3-5,000 years i think.

hmmm... i seem to have gone off somewhere. but i think i got the idea out. yell at me if i don't

mini rant

i am absolutely terrible at this blogging thing. i am bad at updating, writing on it, and figuring out how to say what i want. i think i'd rather write essays than this thing. i am almost two to three weeks behind on this thing and i absolutely convinced that i am a lazy bum.

oh, wait. i already knew that...

additionally, i can't seem to find anything useful about Eve Sedgwick. it's driving me bonkers. so far, all i know is that she has a vendetta against labeling and studies homosocial/homosexual issues... i am so lost.

Frye

"One has to assume, as an essential heuristic axiom, that the work as produced constitutes the definitive record of the writer's intention. For many of the flaws which an inexperienced critic thinks he detects, the answer "But it's supposed to be that way" is sufficient."
Frye, "Theory of Symbols" pg. 87

Now, if only i could convince my other professors of that. there are no flaws to the artists finished product, there is only the product as it is. the intentions of the maker have no place other than they made something to be the way it turned out. subconscious or deliberate, it moakes no difference to the critic, nor even what those intentions were.

the work is the statement of the artist intentions, because if the artist did not want it to turn out like that it wouldn't have.

so the work means the work and is a statement from the artist, but the artists intentions have no purpose or, rahter, no place in any part of the criticism. hmm.

Don Quixote

found this. hilarious but apt. musical but sums up the first part and basically D.Q.'s mindset

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLg15_GEkjk

we get the intro of Sancho and D.Q.

D.Q.

pg 150
linking back to the cyclical ages from gold, to silver, to bronze, to iron, to gold. so D.Q. is a high mimetic person born in a low mimetic/ironic age. he's attempting to cycle through to the mythic age once again, or the Golden era as he calls it. hmm...