Q3APWiki+Patrick

The Bible as Literature: The Book of Job AP English

According to OWL Purdue, in order to cite the Bible properly, we need to give the name of the specific edition that is used, any editor(s) associated with it, followed by the publication information. The in-text (parenthetical citation) should include the name of the specific edition of the Bible, followed by an abbreviation of the book, the chapter and verse(s).
 * How do you cite a quotation from the Bible? Please don’t forget that OWL Purdue is the preferred grammar source for KIS.**

The word 'bible' is always capitalized when the word is referring to the holy text.
 * When is the word bible capitalized and when is it not?**

//The Holy Bible: Kings James Version//. 5th ed. Auckland: Liturgical Society, 1954. Print.
 * Write the MLA citation for the Bible.**


 * Copy and paste 5 of the most important lines from Job. Cite the locations correctly.**

What does iniquity mean? Why is this word important?

List one other word that people who read Job should know.

Find 2-3 figures of speech. Copy and paste the lines and identify what figure of speech is used.

Is the Book of Job a tragedy, romance, history, or comedy?

Who is Elihu and why is he important? Who might he compare to in Oedipus?

Self-evaluation on my own poetry slam video
=For poetry feedback, I did Jason's with Alex.=
 * 1) I believe I have a comprehensive analysis of my sonnet, a balance between structural and thematic analyses.
 * 2) I would start off with a TPCAST. I steered away from this because I organized my analysis in a different way, but in hindsight, the TPCAST would have enhanced my analysis.
 * 3) The straightforwardness of the sonnet, I found surprising. Initially, I was expecting a plethora of symbols and allegorical writing. During my analysis, I encountered far less.
 * 4) I found the age-specific terms confusing. I guess this is true for any Elizabethan or any of the older poems, but the phrases and terms that were common (or should I say, more easily understood) are not as common today and this aspect of the poem threw me off a bit from time to time.
 * 5) The visuals lacked the pictures, but it compensated for what it was missing with relevant footage, I thought.
 * 6) I think I deserve a B... Honestly, this project did not consist of A-deserving effort and hence the final product did not come out that way either.

Working Thesis: In Lord Jim and Typhoon, Conrad is quite the contributor to feministic theory.

Intro The absence of female protagonists in Conradian novels, however the key roles in which females play as foils or for other literary effect.

Who was Conrad, does his life show any evidence of a feministic background?

Paragraph 1 Feminism in this era, and how this presence may have affected Conrad and his writing

Paragraph 2 Role of gender roles in society at the time (Conrad’s era)

media type="custom" key="5423387"

FINAL VIDEO SCRIPT
It’s funny really.

Love is the most basic of emotions in human relationships. I mean, love lends itself to be the foundation to friendship, familyhood, romance, altruism... you name it.

Yet it is the most complicated as well.

Love is not something we can substantiate through a mathematical proof.

Love is not definable, it is only identifiable.

Love is a period in which an assortment of chemicals is raging through ones body, creating a chemically induced physiological reaction.

But love also is the gateway in which two souls are allowed to meet.

It is an unstoppable force of nature that gives strength and courage to all.

So what in the world is this thing called love anyway?

The Sonnet 116 by William Shakespeare is a poem that attempts to define the intrinsic nature of love in merely 14 lines. In my opinion, this has to be Shakespeare’s boldest literary escapade in his 30-40 odd years of writing. 116 is the typical Shakespearean sonnet, and arguably the most well-known out of his 154 sonnets on Shakespeare’s resume.

Analysis

This sonnet is essentially made up of three quatrains and one couplet at the end. And so my analysis will be divided up into the quatrains and the couplet

So the first quatrain (lines 1-4)

The sonnet opens with the speaker attempting to define love. (underline the first line)

On a thematic level, “Let me not to the marriage of true minds “admit impediments” This is Shakespeare’s take on love... This is Shakespeare’s declaration that there’s no reason why two true minded individuals cannot be married. And then we move onto the remainder of the second, third and fourth lines (underline them) –we see the speaker further declaring what he believes love is. True love is constant, unalterable, unbendable.

Now on a structural level, I noticed a couple of interesting bits and pieces: The first quatrain is splattered with negation. Shakespeare determines what Love is not, rather than what Love is... This creates a sense of ambiguity because good ol’ Shakespeare does not touch upon what love is... but merely on what it is NOT.

Furthermore, I’ve noticed quite a bit of repetition here and there... notice the love and love (highlight), the alter and alterations, the remover and the remove...

So now let’s move onto the second quatrain

The second quatrain continues Shakespeare's attempt to define love, but in a more direct way. Not only is there a direct address to love itself, the style Shakespeare’s contemplation becomes more direct.

The second quatrain differentiates itself from the first because of Shakespeare now starts to mention what love is and not what love is not, in contrast to what the first quatrain, which did the opposite. In the second quatrain, I noticed that there weren’t any negations. Hence, we see a shift from the ambiguity onto some certainty. The “oh, no” seems to be Shakespeare’s inner exclamation, his personal realization of what love is... and then he elaborates from there... (highlight the following lines).

Okay now, on a thematic level, notice the “the ever-fixed mark.” This is Shakespeare’s essential symbol for unwavering love and romance–a beacon of light that stands steadfast amidst storms and tempests. Love is “never shaken.” As a lighthouse is an unfaltering guide for those seamen sailing out in the sea, the stars are also such reliable source of guidance, the guiding north star to every lost ship (refering to the It is the star to every wandering bark).

On a structural level, the enjambment in lines 4-5 looks obvious yet significant because the enjambed line highlights the ever-fixed mark. Considering that this symbol is the crux of the thematic message in the second quatrain, this is pretty darn significant.

The third quatrain, okay

So the third quatrain further emphasizes Shakespeares’s assertion since the first quatrain– the constant, unchanging love. This quatrain is quite straightforward in nature–Time cannot alter love. Our aesthetics may change due to age. Each passing day, week and month may drastically change our lives. But no, love will not, cannot change. In a way, the reference to the sickle shows just how much of a threat Shakespeare views Time. Like Death himself, Time too carries his sickle waiting to steal love. However, Time is no match for true love. Love cannot be measured in “brief hours and weeks”; love is eternal; it “bears it out even to the edge of doom.”

Okay, on a structual level, look at TIME (highlight). It’s capitalized in the middle of the sentence, in the middle of the line. This can only mean the author was exercising his poetic license here. By ignoring grammatical convention, the reader pays attention to the word time, and naturally the concept of time. I guess Shakespeare felt the need to greatly emphasize time for the final quatrain.

In the final couplet, the poet declares that, if he is mistaken about the constant, unmovable nature of perfect love, then he must take back all his writings on love, truth, and faith. Moreover, he adds that, if he has in fact judged love inappropriately, no man has ever really loved.

Video Outline
Poetry Slam + Textual analysis

My thoughts + analysis

This sonnet attempts to define love, by telling both what it is and is not.

In the first bit, the speaker says that love—”the marriage of true minds”—is perfect and unchanging; it does not “admit impediments,” and it does not change when it find changes in the loved one.

In the second bit, the speaker tells what love is through a metaphor: a guiding star to lost ships that is not susceptible to storms.

Sonnet 116 is about love in its most ideal form.

It is praising the glories of lovers who have come to each other freely, and enter into a relationship based on trust and understanding....

In the final couplet, the poet declares that, if he is mistaken about the constant, unmovable nature of perfect love, then he must take back all his writings on love, truth, and faith.....

......

What this sonnet offers is extraordinary in that it frames its discussion of the passion of love within a very restrained, very intensely disciplined rhetorical structure.

The use of repetition

“Love is not love...” “alters when it alteration finds....” “bends with the remover to remove....” reinforces the idea of constancy on which the speaker is focusing throughout the sonnet.

In the couplet, the speaker implies that he is so sure of what he has just dramatized about the nature of true love

FIRST DRAFT UPLOAD

The theatrical presence of masculinity has been profound since my youth. After all, I committed quite a chunk of my time on television engrossed in the adventures of Popeye, the fearless and disproportionately buff sailor. Although I was only six or seven at the time, I knew in my heart that he epitomized masculinity. Popeye seemed every bit as strong as Superman. When Batman rode in with his BatMobile, Popeye had his corncob pipe. Spiderman’s Mary Jane was Popeye’s Olive Oyl. Popeye’s most impressive trait, however, was the fact that he could gulp down a can of spinach out of his own free will – nothing could top that, really. In hindsight, it seems like the above assertions are worth more than the usual six year-old’s unsubstantiated observations, as they have a symbolic foundation to them as well. Popeye’s profession as a sailor does convey an intrinsic masculine image–the navy, in the western world, has been a place for he adventurous male souls. The superhuman strength of Popeye implied hegemonic masculinity, especially in the scenes in which he grappled onto Olive Oyl in order to stop her from falling down a massive crevice of some sort. Popeye’s strict adherence to the navy dress code allowed the phallic symbolism on the US military uniform to come out on display. Popeye, in my eyes, was the ideal sailor, the ideal male hero. I have to say the personal transition from Popeye to Lord Jim and Captain MacWhirr was quite difficult to digest. The idealistic male specimen in which Popeye embodied contrasted too greatly with the dishonorable Lord Jim and the incompetent MacWhirr. The maritime narrative (although most of Popeye’s adventures took place on land) with the triumphant sailor was not exactly the case for both of my Conradian pieces. Instead, I encountered the moral demise of one sailor and the death of another in midst of a wild tempest. I’m guessing that the Conrad was steering away from the general definition of masculinity in the context of manly character – instead he was more poised towards redefining or rethinking the concept, to be more exact. It is evident that Conrad’s view of male ‘dominance’ did not coincide with what has already been established centuries ago through social, literary and academic structure. The male body, Conrad scrutinized, through his works as “the human body is not simply a blank page upon which words have not yet been written. It is, more aptly, a textless text whose meaning is read by many readers, whether they are invited to read or not. It is a text which is almost always read from the outside (the reader introjecting meaning), but which always has the potential to be read from the inside, in that the body-bearer may at any point choose to wrest control over the text to interpret it as his or her own, making unique meanings and giving them primacy of place.” The male body is quite unlike that of the female. The females have endeavored to define themselves, but it seems that males have been defined through history and society.