What, if anything can Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales, teach us about the modern legal distinction between parody and satire?
In the modern legal system, the distinction between a satire and a parody are as follows: A parody is defined as the - often humorous - use of a song, play, or text which changes the actual content of the work to give farcical or ironic meaning to the original material. Alternatively, a satire is a literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit. A parody, under most circumstances, is protected under modern copyright law, seeing as the parody in some way comments on the original work, while a satire is an original composition, though potentially stylistically similar to another, based on some vice or error. The distinction is written into the letter of modern copyright law, however there exist anomalies in the course of literature that provide insight into where the line is truly drawn between what can be considered a parody and what can be considered a satire; the most pronounced of these works is Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales. What makes The Canterbury Tales such an important player in the argument as to what constitutes a parody, which is prosecutable by law, or a satire, which is not directly protected, is that The Canterbury Tales functions as both a parody and a satire, raising questions as to whether or not it would be easily prosecutable in the modern law system. Therefore, through keen observation, The Canterbury Tales provides that in the modern legal system, the definition of what constitutes a parody and a satire, and thus what is or isn’t prosecutable by law, isn’t always as black and white as the law itself assumes, seeing that The Canterbury Tales maintains the characteristics of both a parody and a satire, obscuring the seemingly objective nature of copyright law.
To further delve into the issue it is important to understand how the modern legal system assesses and distinguishes the issue of parodies and satire. Fair use, the underlying concept of copyright law, does not protect against satire, as a proper satire does not comment on the original work directly, but rather utilizes certain elements of an existing work to create an original, transformative work. However if a work constitutes a parody, and actually comments back on the original work, it is prosecutable by law. The three basic tenants of fair use law, according to So What… About Copyright?, that distinguish whether not a parody is or is not an infringement of Fair Use, and thus whether or not it functions as a satire, depends on whether:
1. It comments on the work.
2. It uses only as much of the original material as needed, without confusing the public or the consumer, or diluting the commercial value of the original.
3. Finally, it should not seek to replace the original in the market place.
Also, according to fair use law, a parody may avoid persecution if the work is “transformative,” differing enough from the original material as to be a distinguished entity. Additionally, though there exist guidelines, which, it should be noted are not actually written law, the issue of what is or isn’t a satire or parody is a case-by-case issue and is often complex in its nature (). Therefore the inherent value of these aforementioned guidelines, in the scope of this argument, is that it will provide a basic standard by which to assess whether or not something is a parody, because, as it will soon become obvious, the written copyright law is rarely as straight forward as it is written.
Now, observing Chaucer’s work in the frame of this argument, The Canterbury Tales is a perfect example of a work that makes the often clean-cut letter of the law unclear. This area of question is derived from the fact that The Canterbury Tales functions as both a parody, which may or may not infringe on current fair use laws, as well as a social satire. In terms of parody, The Canterbury Tales shares a very similar structure and over-arching plot with other preceding contemporary works. Most notable of all, The Decameron, finished by Giovanni Boccaccio in 1351, follows, in third-person, the stories and journey of a small group of pilgrims who are escaping the plague and find solace in sharing stories with one another in a quiet church sanctuary. Chaucer’s work also follows a group of pilgrims who, though pursuing a different destination with a different setting, decide to share tales in an attempt to pass a long journey. In this sense, The Canterbury Tales may be constituted as infringing material by modern law, seeing as it utilizes shares Boccaccio’s structure and basic premise, however, observing the work holistically, the question arises as to whether or not the work truly acts as a parody. Per the pre-designated guidelines, the work itself does not necessarily comment on The Decameron directly, utilizing a similar structure however implementing original characters, however it does, in essence, compete in the same market; The Canterbury Tales, unlike The Decameron was written and distributed in Middle English, making the work more accessible to the majority of the masses of the time. The Decameron, originally written in Italian, would in fact have its commercial value diluted by the sheer availability of The Canterbury Tales to readers who spoke the more common language throughout Europe at the time, English, and not Boccaccio’s vernacular. On the other hand though, the purpose of the Tales themselves is not to directly comment on Boccaccio’s work. The tales themselves, in execution, act as a satire, using a creative, though not entirely original, premise to comment on niches and divisions in society. This conundrum is what makes The Canterbury Tales an instrumental tool in asserting that the difference between a satire and a parody isn’t necessarily as clear as modern copyright law may make it seem to be.
So, what exactly is the Canterbury Tales? Is it a satire, or is it a parody? Is it both? If so, is it infringing on Boccaccio’s The Decameron? The questions themselves retain no immediately right or wrong answer and are up to the reader’s interpretation, however the existence of such questions indicate true the nature of copyright law. Even though there exists an evolving, written system of law to distinguish what is and isn’t prosecutable by law as copyright infringement, the Canterbury Tales provide an example of how satire and parody can be intertwined, calling for a subjective, fact-by-fact analysis. In Chaucer’s case, there seems to be no definitive answer, and like so many other contemporary cases, the result may come down to the slightest spin on the definition of satire and parody. However it is this unclear, subjective nature that endows copyright law with a sense of clarity, as it maintains its ability to follow through with the spirit of the law, as much as the letter. Thus, The Canterbury Tales indicate that modern laws definitions of what does and doesn’t infringe on copyright isn’t always so distinct, and often comes down to what the works aims to accomplish through its composition.
Citation:
Litman, Jessica, Kay Murray, and. Christine Steiner. “What Every Artist Should Know About Copyright and Trademark Law.” So What . . . About Copyright? What Artists Need to Know About Copyright and Trademarks. Ed. David Bollier et al. Public Knowledge, 2005. 11-47. http://www.crt.louisiana.gov/culturalassets//images/howto/so-what-about-copyright.pdf
Thomas Cooper's Recasting the Canterbury Tales (regarding points on whether or not Canterbury Tales is a social satire.)
Tuesday, 30 March 2010
Friday, 19 March 2010
Critical Response Essay Stage 2
In the modern legal system, the distinction between a satire and a parody are as follows: A parody is defined as the - often humorous - use of a song, play, or text which changes the actual content of the work to give farcical or ironic meaning to the original material. Alternatively, a satire is a literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit. A parody, under most circumstances, is protected under modern copyright law, seeing as the parody in some way comments on the original work, while a satire is an original composition , though potentially stylistically similar to another, based on some vice or error. The distinction is written into the letter of modern copyright law, however there exist anomalies in the course of literature that provide insight into where the line is truly drawn between what can be considered a parody and what can be considered a satire; the most pronounced of these works is Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales. What makes The Canterbury Tales such an important player in the argument as to what constitutes a parody, which is prosecutable by law, or a satire, which is not directly protected, is that The Canterbury Tales functions as both a parody and a satire, raising questions as to whether or not it would be easily prosecutable in the modern law system. Therefore, through keen observation, The Canterbury Tales provides that in the modern legal system, the definition of what constitutes a parody and a satire, and thus what is or isn’t prosecutable by law, isn’t always as black and white as the law itself assumes, seeing that The Canterbury Tales maintains the characteristics of both a parody and a satire, obscuring the seemingly objective nature of copyright law.
To further delve into the issue it is important to understand how the modern legal system assesses and distinguishes the issue of parodies and satire. Fair use, the underlying concept of copyright law, does not protect against satire, as a proper satire does not comment on the original work directly, but rather utilizes certain elements of an existing work to create an original, transformative work. However if a work constitutes a parody, and actually comments back on the original work, it is prosecutable by law. The three basic tenants of fair use law, according to So What… About Copyright?, that distinguish whether not a parody is or is not an infringement of Fair Use, and thus whether or not it functions as a satire, depends on whether:
1. It comments on the work.
2. It uses only as much of the original material as needed, without confusing the public or the consumer, or diluting the commercial value of the original.
3. Finally, it should not seek to replace the original in the market place.
Also, according to fair use law, a parody may avoid persecution if the work is “transformative,” differing enough from the original material as to be a distinguished entity. Additionally, though there exist guidelines, as mentioned, the issue of what is or isn’t a satire or parody is a case-by-case issue and is often complex in its nature. Therefore the inherent value of these aforementioned guidelines, in the scope of this argument, is that it will provide a basic standard by which to assess whether or not something is a parody, commenting on the original work, or a satire, using predefined elements to create an entirely unique work, on Fair Use laws.
Now, placing the Canterbury Tales in the frame of this argument, the Canterbury Tales is a perfect example of a work that makes the often clean-cut letter of the law unclear. This gray area is derived from the fact that the Canterbury Tales functions as both a parody, which may or may not infringe on current laws, as well as a satire. In terms of parody, the Canterbury Tales share very similar structure and plots with other preceding contemporary works. For instance the Decameron, by Boccaccio, follows, in third person, the woes and journey of a small group of pilgrims who are escaping the plague and find solace in sharing stories with one another. Chaucer’s work also follows a group of pilgrims who, though pursuing a different destination, decide to share tales in an attempt to pass a long journey. In this sense the Canterbury Tales may be considered as infringing material by modern law but the question arises as to whether or not the work truly acts as a parody. The work itself does not necessarily comment on the Decameron directly, however it does, in essence, compete in the same market. The Canterbury Tales, unlike the Decameron was written and distributed in Middle English, making the work more accessible to the masses of the time. The Decameron, written in latin, would in fact have its commercial value diluted by the sheer availability of the Canterbury Tales to less educated readers. Additionally, the sheer similarity between the works is astounding enough to call to question the possibility of copyright infringement. On the other hand though, the purpose of the Tales themselves is not to directly comment on Boccaccio’s work. The tales themselves in execution act as a satire, using creative, though not entirely original, characters to comment on niches and divisions in society. This conundrum is what makes the Canterbury Tales an instrumental tool in asserting that the difference between a satire and a parody isn’t necessarily as defined as the letter of the law may make it seem to be.
So, what exactly is the Canterbury Tales? Is it a satire, or is it a parody? Is it both? If so, is it infringing on Boccaccio’s The Decameron? The questions themselves retain no immediately right or wrong answer and are up to the reader’s interpretation, however it is the existence of such questions that teach the reader about the nature of copyright law. Through examining the Canterbury Tales and taking into account the questionable nature of its composition, however the original purpose behind the work, multitude can be ascertained about the modern distinction between a satire and a parody. In Chaucer’s case, there seems to be no definitive answer, and like so many other contemporary cases, the result may be surprising. However it is this unclear, subjective nature that endows copyright law with a sense of interest and mystery. Through analysis of the Canterbury Tales, it is possible to learn that the distinction between parody and satire in the modern legal system isn’t always so distinct.
Citations:
Litman, Jessica, Kay Murray, and. Christine Steiner. “What Every Artist Should Know About Copyright and Trademark Law.” So What . . . About Copyright? What Artists Need to Know About Copyright and Trademarks. Ed. David Bollier et al. Public Knowledge, 2005. 11-47. http://www.crt.louisiana.gov/culturalassets//images/howto/so-what-about-copyright.pdf
To further delve into the issue it is important to understand how the modern legal system assesses and distinguishes the issue of parodies and satire. Fair use, the underlying concept of copyright law, does not protect against satire, as a proper satire does not comment on the original work directly, but rather utilizes certain elements of an existing work to create an original, transformative work. However if a work constitutes a parody, and actually comments back on the original work, it is prosecutable by law. The three basic tenants of fair use law, according to So What… About Copyright?, that distinguish whether not a parody is or is not an infringement of Fair Use, and thus whether or not it functions as a satire, depends on whether:
1. It comments on the work.
2. It uses only as much of the original material as needed, without confusing the public or the consumer, or diluting the commercial value of the original.
3. Finally, it should not seek to replace the original in the market place.
Also, according to fair use law, a parody may avoid persecution if the work is “transformative,” differing enough from the original material as to be a distinguished entity. Additionally, though there exist guidelines, as mentioned, the issue of what is or isn’t a satire or parody is a case-by-case issue and is often complex in its nature. Therefore the inherent value of these aforementioned guidelines, in the scope of this argument, is that it will provide a basic standard by which to assess whether or not something is a parody, commenting on the original work, or a satire, using predefined elements to create an entirely unique work, on Fair Use laws.
Now, placing the Canterbury Tales in the frame of this argument, the Canterbury Tales is a perfect example of a work that makes the often clean-cut letter of the law unclear. This gray area is derived from the fact that the Canterbury Tales functions as both a parody, which may or may not infringe on current laws, as well as a satire. In terms of parody, the Canterbury Tales share very similar structure and plots with other preceding contemporary works. For instance the Decameron, by Boccaccio, follows, in third person, the woes and journey of a small group of pilgrims who are escaping the plague and find solace in sharing stories with one another. Chaucer’s work also follows a group of pilgrims who, though pursuing a different destination, decide to share tales in an attempt to pass a long journey. In this sense the Canterbury Tales may be considered as infringing material by modern law but the question arises as to whether or not the work truly acts as a parody. The work itself does not necessarily comment on the Decameron directly, however it does, in essence, compete in the same market. The Canterbury Tales, unlike the Decameron was written and distributed in Middle English, making the work more accessible to the masses of the time. The Decameron, written in latin, would in fact have its commercial value diluted by the sheer availability of the Canterbury Tales to less educated readers. Additionally, the sheer similarity between the works is astounding enough to call to question the possibility of copyright infringement. On the other hand though, the purpose of the Tales themselves is not to directly comment on Boccaccio’s work. The tales themselves in execution act as a satire, using creative, though not entirely original, characters to comment on niches and divisions in society. This conundrum is what makes the Canterbury Tales an instrumental tool in asserting that the difference between a satire and a parody isn’t necessarily as defined as the letter of the law may make it seem to be.
So, what exactly is the Canterbury Tales? Is it a satire, or is it a parody? Is it both? If so, is it infringing on Boccaccio’s The Decameron? The questions themselves retain no immediately right or wrong answer and are up to the reader’s interpretation, however it is the existence of such questions that teach the reader about the nature of copyright law. Through examining the Canterbury Tales and taking into account the questionable nature of its composition, however the original purpose behind the work, multitude can be ascertained about the modern distinction between a satire and a parody. In Chaucer’s case, there seems to be no definitive answer, and like so many other contemporary cases, the result may be surprising. However it is this unclear, subjective nature that endows copyright law with a sense of interest and mystery. Through analysis of the Canterbury Tales, it is possible to learn that the distinction between parody and satire in the modern legal system isn’t always so distinct.
Citations:
Litman, Jessica, Kay Murray, and. Christine Steiner. “What Every Artist Should Know About Copyright and Trademark Law.” So What . . . About Copyright? What Artists Need to Know About Copyright and Trademarks. Ed. David Bollier et al. Public Knowledge, 2005. 11-47. http://www.crt.louisiana.gov/culturalassets//images/howto/so-what-about-copyright.pdf
Sunday, 14 March 2010
Critical Essay Stage 1
Response to : What, if anything can Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales, teach us about the modern legal distinction between parody and satire?
Thesis: The Canterbury Tales teach us that in the modern legal system's definition of satire and parody, a parody, which is prosecutable by law, may avoid legal action if the thing in question is entertaining or beneficial to society, through the use of humor, while a satire, while a satire, which may be similar in nature, is considered completely fine by law as long as the thing in question is the likeness of another person or character.
Questions to Answer/ Points:
What is the legal definition of each?
Is the Canterbury Tales a satire or parody? How so? Could it be considered the other?
-Parody of other works, Confessio Amantis, Decameron
-Satirical characters
Does the Canterbury Tales "steal" from other works?
Example of contemporary satires that aren't prosecuted under law.
Why certain things arent prosecuted.
-Often humorous, good natured.
-Often enjoyed by a mass audience.
Thesis: The Canterbury Tales teach us that in the modern legal system's definition of satire and parody, a parody, which is prosecutable by law, may avoid legal action if the thing in question is entertaining or beneficial to society, through the use of humor, while a satire, while a satire, which may be similar in nature, is considered completely fine by law as long as the thing in question is the likeness of another person or character.
Questions to Answer/ Points:
What is the legal definition of each?
Is the Canterbury Tales a satire or parody? How so? Could it be considered the other?
-Parody of other works, Confessio Amantis, Decameron
-Satirical characters
Does the Canterbury Tales "steal" from other works?
Example of contemporary satires that aren't prosecuted under law.
Why certain things arent prosecuted.
-Often humorous, good natured.
-Often enjoyed by a mass audience.
Friday, 12 March 2010
Multimodal Donne Annotation: Stage 4 Final
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~tcooper33/index.html
This link goes to the website, everything required should be there, enjoy.
This link goes to the website, everything required should be there, enjoy.
Thursday, 11 March 2010
Recasting the Canterbury Tales: Stage 5 Reflection
As the process of revision continued through the project, my drafts evolved with the peer editing. As a peer demanded more from my work, more detail on the character, more concise descriptions, more breadth, so too did the character evolve. In terms of my final draft, it incorporates audio/visual cues as well as text to allow the reader to better envision my personal vision for the character. My compositional strategies include starting with a ground up thumbnail description of my character and then applying him into the tales to see where he fits in. Then as I see his purpose, expand his story and traits to mold him into the story. This works well in other situations where you may have to start with a basic idea and expand it as you find its relevance.
Monday, 8 March 2010
Multimodal Donne Annotation: Stage 3
[To be edited]
Donne, John. Poems of John Donne. vol I.
E. K. Chambers, ed. London: Lawrence & Bullen, 1896. 162-163.
HOLY SONNETS.
XVII.
Since she whom I loved hath paid her last debt
To Nature, and to hers, and my good is dead,
And her soul early into heaven ravishèd,
Wholly on heavenly things my mind is set.
Here the admiring her my mind did whet
To seek thee, God; so streams do show the head;
But though I have found thee, and thou my thirst hast fed,
A holy thirsty dropsy melts me yet.
But why should I beg more love, whenas thou
Dost woo my soul, for hers offering all thine:
And dost not only fear lest I allow
My love to saints and angels, things divine,
But in thy tender jealousy dost doubt
Lest the world, flesh, yea, devil put thee out.
Bovan, Jonquil. “Donne’s Debt to Petrarch in His Holy Sonnet 10.”
Notes and Queries (N&Q) 1998 Mar; 45 (243) (1): 34.
This source discusses similarities between the styling/content of both this sonnet and the Sonnets of Petrarch. The author, Bevan, a published literary critic, provides a source of respected analysis and thus the source is legitimate. The article itself will be used to annotate the similarities in theme and style to other poems, giving a better context for understanding the poem and allowing the reader to search other sources to gain a better background o the poem.
Linsley, Joy L. Frontain, “A Holy Puzzle: Donne’s Holy Sonnet XVII.” John Donne's Religious Imagination: Essays in Honor of John T. Shawcross. Conway, AR; UCA; 1995. (xii, 446 pp.)
This source analyzes the subversive meanings in Holy Sonnet 17 and attempts to explore Donne’s background. The purpose is to ultimately figure out exactly what Donne’s is attempting to do with his poem. The author, Linsley, is a frequently published literary critic, including articles in The Journal of Thomas Moore, and so the author is considered credible. This source will b used to bring in annotations that deal with Donne’s past and how he incorporates that into his poetry to express a deeper meaning.
Faulkner, Eleanor; Daniels, Edgar F. “Donne's Holy Sonnets XVII (Since she whome I lovd), 1-2.” Explicator (Richmond, VA) 1976; 34: Item 68.
This source discussed the basic meaning of Donne’s poem. The author is also a renowned literary critic, which should provide proper authenticity to her opinions, as well as her co-author. This article will be used as a basis for discussion rather than a supporting source. The general analysis will allow for a better discussion and serve as a basis for analysis.
Hirsh, Edward. How to Read a Poem: And Fall in Love with Poetry. 1999.
This book is an incredible source for lyrical poetry analysis, of which Donne’s is classified. Edward Hirsh, an acclaimed author and poetry critic, has a voice in the world of academics and poetry that is highly respected. The source speaks to the everyday audience and enthusiast who want to learn more about poetry. The source will be used to provide deep insight into why Donne may choose certain motifs and style I his lyric poetry. Also it will evaluate his rhetorical situation.
My annotations will be in the form of a webpage that has tabs per citation. The basic summary of my annotations will delve into the ideas of death in Holy Sonnet 17, as well as redemption. The annotations will also acknowledge and make sense of Donne’s past, as incorporated into the poems, and attempt to access his deeper personal meaning and style.
Donne, John. Poems of John Donne. vol I.
E. K. Chambers, ed. London: Lawrence & Bullen, 1896. 162-163.
HOLY SONNETS.
XVII.
Since she whom I loved hath paid her last debt
To Nature, and to hers, and my good is dead,
And her soul early into heaven ravishèd,
Wholly on heavenly things my mind is set.
Here the admiring her my mind did whet
To seek thee, God; so streams do show the head;
But though I have found thee, and thou my thirst hast fed,
A holy thirsty dropsy melts me yet.
But why should I beg more love, whenas thou
Dost woo my soul, for hers offering all thine:
And dost not only fear lest I allow
My love to saints and angels, things divine,
But in thy tender jealousy dost doubt
Lest the world, flesh, yea, devil put thee out.
Bovan, Jonquil. “Donne’s Debt to Petrarch in His Holy Sonnet 10.”
Notes and Queries (N&Q) 1998 Mar; 45 (243) (1): 34.
This source discusses similarities between the styling/content of both this sonnet and the Sonnets of Petrarch. The author, Bevan, a published literary critic, provides a source of respected analysis and thus the source is legitimate. The article itself will be used to annotate the similarities in theme and style to other poems, giving a better context for understanding the poem and allowing the reader to search other sources to gain a better background o the poem.
Linsley, Joy L. Frontain, “A Holy Puzzle: Donne’s Holy Sonnet XVII.” John Donne's Religious Imagination: Essays in Honor of John T. Shawcross. Conway, AR; UCA; 1995. (xii, 446 pp.)
This source analyzes the subversive meanings in Holy Sonnet 17 and attempts to explore Donne’s background. The purpose is to ultimately figure out exactly what Donne’s is attempting to do with his poem. The author, Linsley, is a frequently published literary critic, including articles in The Journal of Thomas Moore, and so the author is considered credible. This source will b used to bring in annotations that deal with Donne’s past and how he incorporates that into his poetry to express a deeper meaning.
Faulkner, Eleanor; Daniels, Edgar F. “Donne's Holy Sonnets XVII (Since she whome I lovd), 1-2.” Explicator (Richmond, VA) 1976; 34: Item 68.
This source discussed the basic meaning of Donne’s poem. The author is also a renowned literary critic, which should provide proper authenticity to her opinions, as well as her co-author. This article will be used as a basis for discussion rather than a supporting source. The general analysis will allow for a better discussion and serve as a basis for analysis.
Hirsh, Edward. How to Read a Poem: And Fall in Love with Poetry. 1999.
This book is an incredible source for lyrical poetry analysis, of which Donne’s is classified. Edward Hirsh, an acclaimed author and poetry critic, has a voice in the world of academics and poetry that is highly respected. The source speaks to the everyday audience and enthusiast who want to learn more about poetry. The source will be used to provide deep insight into why Donne may choose certain motifs and style I his lyric poetry. Also it will evaluate his rhetorical situation.
My annotations will be in the form of a webpage that has tabs per citation. The basic summary of my annotations will delve into the ideas of death in Holy Sonnet 17, as well as redemption. The annotations will also acknowledge and make sense of Donne’s past, as incorporated into the poems, and attempt to access his deeper personal meaning and style.
Thursday, 4 March 2010
Multimodal Donne Annotation: Stage 2 Draft
Donne, John. Poems of John Donne. vol I.
E. K. Chambers, ed. London: Lawrence & Bullen, 1896. 162-163.
HOLY SONNETS.
XVII.
Since she whom I loved hath paid her last debt
To Nature, and to hers, and my good is dead,
And her soul early into heaven ravishèd,
Wholly on heavenly things my mind is set.
Here the admiring her my mind did whet
To seek thee, God; so streams do show the head;
But though I have found thee, and thou my thirst hast fed,
A holy thirsty dropsy melts me yet.
But why should I beg more love, whenas thou
Dost woo my soul, for hers offering all thine:
And dost not only fear lest I allow
My love to saints and angels, things divine,
But in thy tender jealousy dost doubt
Lest the world, flesh, yea, devil put thee out.
Bovan, Jonquil. “Donne’s Debt to Petrarch in His Holy Sonnet 10.”
Notes and Queries (N&Q) 1998 Mar; 45 (243) (1): 34.
This source discusses similarities between the styling/content of both this sonnet and the Sonnets of Petrarch. The author, Bevan, a published literary critic, provides a source of respected analysis and thus the source is legitimate. The article itself will be used to annotate the similarities in theme and style to other poems, giving a better context for understanding the poem and allowing the reader to search other sources to gain a better background o the poem.
Linsley, Joy L. Frontain, “A Holy Puzzle: Donne’s Holy Sonnet XVII.” John Donne's Religious Imagination: Essays in Honor of John T. Shawcross. Conway, AR; UCA; 1995. (xii, 446 pp.)
This source analyzes the subversive meanings in Holy Sonnet 17 and attempts to explore Donne’s background. The purpose is to ultimately figure out exactly what Donne’s is attempting to do with his poem. The author, Linsley, is a frequently published literary critic, including articles in The Journal of Thomas Moore, and so the author is considered credible. This source will b used to bring in annotations that deal with Donne’s past and how he incorporates that into his poetry to express a deeper meaning.
Faulkner, Eleanor; Daniels, Edgar F. “Donne's Holy Sonnets XVII (Since she whome I lovd), 1-2.” Explicator (Richmond, VA) 1976; 34: Item 68.
This source discussed the basic meaning of Donne’s poem. The author is also a renowned literary critic, which should provide proper authenticity to her opinions, as well as her co-author. This article will be used as a basis for discussion rather than a supporting source. The general analysis will allow for a better discussion and serve as a basis for analysis.
Hirsh, Edward. How to Read a Poem: And Fall in Love with Poetry. 1999.
This book is an incredible source for lyrical poetry analysis, of which Donne’s is classified. Edward Hirsh, an acclaimed author and poetry critic, has a voice in the world of academics and poetry that is highly respected. The source speaks to the everyday audience and enthusiast who want to learn more about poetry. The source will be used to provide deep insight into why Donne may choose certain motifs and style I his lyric poetry. Also it will evaluate his rhetorical situation.
My annotations will be in the form of a webpage that has tabs per citation. The basic summary of my annotations will delve into the ideas of death in Holy Sonnet 17, as well as redemption. The annotations will also acknowledge and make sense of Donne’s past, as incorporated into the poems, and attempt to access his deeper personal meaning and style.
E. K. Chambers, ed. London: Lawrence & Bullen, 1896. 162-163.
HOLY SONNETS.
XVII.
Since she whom I loved hath paid her last debt
To Nature, and to hers, and my good is dead,
And her soul early into heaven ravishèd,
Wholly on heavenly things my mind is set.
Here the admiring her my mind did whet
To seek thee, God; so streams do show the head;
But though I have found thee, and thou my thirst hast fed,
A holy thirsty dropsy melts me yet.
But why should I beg more love, whenas thou
Dost woo my soul, for hers offering all thine:
And dost not only fear lest I allow
My love to saints and angels, things divine,
But in thy tender jealousy dost doubt
Lest the world, flesh, yea, devil put thee out.
Bovan, Jonquil. “Donne’s Debt to Petrarch in His Holy Sonnet 10.”
Notes and Queries (N&Q) 1998 Mar; 45 (243) (1): 34.
This source discusses similarities between the styling/content of both this sonnet and the Sonnets of Petrarch. The author, Bevan, a published literary critic, provides a source of respected analysis and thus the source is legitimate. The article itself will be used to annotate the similarities in theme and style to other poems, giving a better context for understanding the poem and allowing the reader to search other sources to gain a better background o the poem.
Linsley, Joy L. Frontain, “A Holy Puzzle: Donne’s Holy Sonnet XVII.” John Donne's Religious Imagination: Essays in Honor of John T. Shawcross. Conway, AR; UCA; 1995. (xii, 446 pp.)
This source analyzes the subversive meanings in Holy Sonnet 17 and attempts to explore Donne’s background. The purpose is to ultimately figure out exactly what Donne’s is attempting to do with his poem. The author, Linsley, is a frequently published literary critic, including articles in The Journal of Thomas Moore, and so the author is considered credible. This source will b used to bring in annotations that deal with Donne’s past and how he incorporates that into his poetry to express a deeper meaning.
Faulkner, Eleanor; Daniels, Edgar F. “Donne's Holy Sonnets XVII (Since she whome I lovd), 1-2.” Explicator (Richmond, VA) 1976; 34: Item 68.
This source discussed the basic meaning of Donne’s poem. The author is also a renowned literary critic, which should provide proper authenticity to her opinions, as well as her co-author. This article will be used as a basis for discussion rather than a supporting source. The general analysis will allow for a better discussion and serve as a basis for analysis.
Hirsh, Edward. How to Read a Poem: And Fall in Love with Poetry. 1999.
This book is an incredible source for lyrical poetry analysis, of which Donne’s is classified. Edward Hirsh, an acclaimed author and poetry critic, has a voice in the world of academics and poetry that is highly respected. The source speaks to the everyday audience and enthusiast who want to learn more about poetry. The source will be used to provide deep insight into why Donne may choose certain motifs and style I his lyric poetry. Also it will evaluate his rhetorical situation.
My annotations will be in the form of a webpage that has tabs per citation. The basic summary of my annotations will delve into the ideas of death in Holy Sonnet 17, as well as redemption. The annotations will also acknowledge and make sense of Donne’s past, as incorporated into the poems, and attempt to access his deeper personal meaning and style.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)