Can They Be Similar?

Major  Challenge:  Reflective  Paragraph

Although  I  was  not  happy  with  either  of  the  two  president  candidates  for  our  most  recent  election,  and  I  despise  politics,  after  reading  about  Queen  Elizabeth  I  almost  immediately  thought  of  Hillary  Clinton.  If  Hillary  Clinton  had  become  president,  I  feel  as  if  she  and  Queen  Elizabeth  could  learn  something  from  each  other.  It  appears  that  Mrs.  Clinton  is  as  independent  as  Queen  Elizabeth,  which  I  admire  about  Queen  Elizabeth,  especially  in  a  time  where  not  many  people  wanted  only  a  Queen  to  rule.  Mrs.  Clinton  would  have  faced  the  same  criticism  and  struggles  as  Queen  Elizabeth  if  she  had  become  the  first  woman  President  of  the  United  States.  Mrs.  Clinton  would  have  had  to  defend  her  femininity  and  show  masculinity  at  the  same  time  in  order  to  run  the  U.S.,  similar  to  how  Queen  Elizabeth  used  her  femininity  and  masculinity  to  win  wars  and  make  decisions  for  England.  Many  people  are  scared  of  change,  especially  after  our  country  had  already  faced  a  change  in  pattern  when  former  President  Obama  was  elected  into  office;  therefore,  allowing  a  woman  to  take  charge  of  the  United  States  could  have  possibly  upset  a  large  number  of  people.  Despite  the  challenges  the  people  of  the  U.S.  would  have  posed  to  Mrs.  Clinton,  if  she  had  won  the  election  she  would  have  to  earn  the  trust  of  not  only  the  people,  but  her  staff  as  well,  much  like  Queen  Elizabeth  did  so  long  ago.  Perhaps  the  staff  at  the  white  house  would  appreciate  Mrs.  Clinton  the  same  as  the  staff  in  England  appreciated  Queen  Elizabeth,  maybe  not.

I  chose  the  two  pictures  below  to  show  that  despite  the  different  time  frames  these  two  women  are  in,  they  have  faced  similar  challenges.

Pictures  from  Google

The Anatomy of a Murderer

      Upon watching the two episodes of Rome, I was surprised by the continual following and showing of Brutus's actions leading up to his betrayal of Caesar. I felt as if I were viewing a personal journey of his towards becoming a 'hero' of Rome, and that the show itself was trying to make its audience contemplate his and his allies actions versus Caesar. Servilia, Brutus's mother, was eerily snakelike and I found her to be almost insane, especially in the antagonistic relationship between her and her son and her alliance with Pompey's son.
      It was interesting to see how Rome's interpretation of Caesar's life and death differed and converged from the other sources we were given (journal articles and Plutarch's stories). I particularly enjoyed picking out the inclusion of Brutus working with Pompey despite his role in the death of his father, and the inclusion of other characters mentioned in Plutarch's lives of Antony and Brutus. The scene where Brutus begs for Caesar to believe his innocence against the writing of the posted letter directly referenced the words of Plutarch, who implied that even in battle, Caesar did everything possible to spare Brutus. I felt Caesar's love for his friend consistent and human, despite Brutus's turmoil over what side he should choose.
      Overall, I thought the show was a great way to visualize the events leading up to Caesar's death, as well as showcase the anger and conviction of his murderers. It seems to beg the question of the price of power, and the price of choice (characterized through Brutus's indecision and fear).

https://allhailtheblackmarket.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/070-james-mason-theredlist.jpg

FFS, Rick.

I was struck with an overwhelming sense of "for f*ck's sake" upon coming across the exchange in act IV, scene two regarding Richard’s wish to kill the two boys, specifically lines 20-22: (Richard to Buckingham) “Shall I be plain? I wish the bastards dead, And I would have it suddenly performed. What sayst thou now?”. Which, to me, sounds like “Hey, kill those kids. Ok? Ok.” And when Buckingham offers his hesitations about the matter (lines 26-27: “Give me some little breath, some pause, dear lord, Before I positively speak in this”) Richard says, in short, “Lame. I’ll get someone else that’s not a wuss.”

I find it so outrageously bold and somewhat comical of Richard, though not completely out of turn for him, being that the play has sort of been prepping us all along for his general outrageousness- and I do remind myself that it is indeed a play- but to me it’s so silly that it takes me out of the moment and makes me hyperaware that it is really just a play.

This all brings me to that overarching theme of this course so far: the embellishment of historical tales and the degree thereof. We know already that the facts are skewed, but I wonder (my own disbelief aside) that, if they weren’t, would it or could it have happened so casually? Clearly, I haven’t the real answer to this, but what I do know  is this: there are more layers to this conundrum than just skewed facts- that is, their depiction that brings people to be so misinformed. If Shakespeare is going around saying this untrue thing happened in this absurd manner, then things get extra funky (and not in a good way).

I couldn't find an image with quite the right feel to accompany this blog post, so I made my own. 

Created using imgflip.com, image from television series "The Simpsons"

The "Irrelevant" Perspective

In Act 2, Scene 3 we gain an insight to the way the citizens feel about Richard the Third becoming King. The story takes a step back for the readers to look at everything in front of them and not just the one perspective stories give you to focus on. Instead of only reading the thoughts of the main cast, Shakespeare shares the opinions of three citizens to help the reader open their eyes and see the full truth behind what is happening. The first citizen is fearful and states, "Bad news, by'r lady; seldom comes the better. I fear, I fear 'twill prove a giddy world"(Act 2, Scene 3, Line 5). The second citizen however is optimistic about the future, "Come, come, we fear the worst; all shall be well"(Act 2, Scene 3, Line 31). The third citizen does not think they are in good hands if Richard the Third were to rule, "O, full of danger is the Duke of Gloucester" (Act 2, Scene 3, Line 27). The three citizens in this scene speak about how they feel Prince Edward is to young to rule, how they worry that the family seeks power with jealousy, and see Richard as dangerous. They fear what the future will bring, and Shakespeare shares that with us. I thought this was interesting because with most stories, there is only one point of view shown. An author usually only writes about the main cast and their perspectives. Because of this, the reader only gets to see the point of view from the most dominant figures, instead of getting a look at how the average, outside people feel about those dominant figures. Shakespeare brings out minor figures that were once irrelevant and lets the readers see another point of view to open their mind from all angles on what is really happening in the story

The glasses indicate another way to see things.

.

What Do The People Really Want?

"Woe to that land that's govern'd by a child" (2.3.11) This quote is said by a citizen who is talking with their neighbors. I thought it was odd of them to say this because they hadn't give the prince a chance to rule yet. They were so quick to say that their lives were about to be shit shows that they didn't stop to think the alternative. All the citizens thought that the prince would do better with a noble man by his side to guide him. "For emulation now who shall be nearest/ Will touch us all too near, if God prevent not./ O, full of danger is the Duke of Gloucester." (2.3.25-27) However in the same breath they are willing to say that the only man able to guide the prince is a danger to society. It is as if they aren't sure if they want a child to be the king on his own or if they want a child guided by a dangerous guardian to be king.

Tonypandy For Your Thoughts.

Left to right foreground; Henry, Earl of March, King Richard III, and Richard, Duke of York (Robert East, Peter Cook, and Brian Blessed respectively) in season 1, episode 1 of Black Adder in 1983.

Intro Black Adder Season 1 Episode 1 (only watch the first 1:06)

   History is written by the victors? Not necessarily. Sometimes, all it takes is a lie in a sympathetic novel, or a monument that fires the imagination.
   The name "Tonypandy" is used over and over in Daughter of Time, being adopted by Allen Grant and his associates as shorthand for "historical myths many people consider to be facts". the name comes from the Tonypandy riots in Wales, where miners demanding better wages and safety regulations were confronted by police armed with "rolled-up Mackintoshes" (according to Tey, 104). After reading this, and the associated myth-turned-popular-fact that soldiers who were ordered into the area fired upon the rioters, I went looking for the source of the myth. What I found was Cwmardy, a "documentary novel" by Lewis Jones, a trade union leader contemporary to the riots. his book includes a completely fictional incident where 11 miners were gunned down by soldiers.

    In the reading for today,Grant and Carradine discuss another bit of Tonypandy, the public image of the Covenanters. Grant received a letter from his friend Laura, which told him about a set of monuments in Scotland. These were dedicated to "two women martyrs, drowned for their faith" (Tey 130). It turned out not only were they convicted of treason in connection with an invasion from Holland (rather than for religious reasons) and were granted a reprieve instead of executed.
  Laura's letter concludes by noting the reaction people have when told about such things. "it's an odd thing but when you tell someone the facts of a mythical tale, they are indignant not with the teller but with you" (131). The phenomenon of cognitive dissonance is one we are all distressingly familiar with these days. People will cling to what they believe, or to what supports their own position, regardless of facts.

We All Have Our Own Tonypandy

"More Tonypandy, he thought. " (Pg. 132) How many of us say this on a daily basis? Probably not many, but we do say "what is the point of this?", "why do I need to know this?" Or even "what was the purpose of saying that?" Overall in The Daughter of Time, Tonypandy is present.  My take on Tonypandy is that it's basically unneeded information, statements or maybe even people that enter our lives.  This is present in today's society and was clearly present in the past.  Although many of the resources Grant pulls from may be reliable such as the portrait he examines and the school history book, who's to say there isn't some Tonypandy hidden in there? We discussed last class how the portrait of Richard III can be viewed from many different point such of view, so there's really no way to know the true image of Richard III.  On a larger scale, the discussions he has with people such as his surgon and a few of his friends about Richard III's portrait should not be taken into consideration for facts.  That hearsay goes hand in hand with Tonypandy and basically has no business in his investigation.  There are many situations like this in our present day, some on a smaller scale such as rumors in a high school, and some on a larger scale like unnecessary tweets posted by our president.  All in all society has changed on a large scale through the years, but some parts will never be unchanged.

Grant's Quest for clarity

I found the first nine chapters of The Daughter of Time ties in with our discussion of what is history/fiction. History is usually describe and associated with fact and is separate from fiction. The depiction of Richard III is that he is an ugly human and a killer. Our main character Alan Grant, is a detective and tries uncover the truth behind who Richard III really was. Grant and his associates are all interpreting different pictures and readings to try and found out what is true history and what is fiction when it comes to the uncertainty of who Richard III really was. Was he the rightfully the last King of the Middle Ages in England? Or was he a power-hungry nephew killer.While reading I found that there is a lot of confusion following the families and it is difficult to know who comes next. “Every Schoolboy turned over the last page of Richard III with relief, because now at last the War of the Roses were over and they could get on to the Tudors, who were dull but easy to follow.” (34) It seems to be a difficult family tree to follow for students in England. I feel that differing between history and fiction is even more difficult. Grant and his associates continue their push to differentiate the between history and fiction. They find that Thomas More’s account of Richard III was based upon false statements from John Morton who was “Richard’s bitterest enemy” (95). I think that this shows that John may have been biased in his interpretation of Richard and tried to paint him to be a bad person ergo, Richard might not have been such a bad guy. There is a lot of evidence that needs to be addressed by the characters to properly distinguish the facts. I’m excited to follow Grant as he attempts to separate true history from fiction.

Work cited

The Daughter of Time Josephine Tey

The Portrait of Villainy

The thing I found most interesting about this reading occurred in the second chapter, when Grant and the Surgeon are discussing Richard III, who is also- of course- our key point of discussion in class as of last time. Grant is examining a portrait of the late King, and invites his Surgeon to do so as well. As they do, the following exchange occurs:

‘Who is it?’ the surgeon asked.
‘Richard the Third.’
‘Really? That’s interesting.’
‘Did you know that he had a withered arm?’
‘Had he? I didn’t remember that. I thought he was a hunchback.’
‘So he was.’
‘What I do remember is that he was born with a full set of teeth and ate live frogs. Well, my diagnosis seems to be abnormally accurate.’

I immediately found myself relating this to an issue I'd seen raised online earlier about Disney; specifically about how the villains are often malformed or bearing unique, striking features in comparison to the protagonists, who often feel rather generic and cookie cutter. Take for example withered and eerie appearance of the Queen from Snow White when she disguises herself as an old woman, the muscular, big-jawed and big-toothed face of Clayton from Tarzan, or the gaunt, dark-toned and (obviously) scarred form of Scar from The Lion King.

With the occasional exception, of course.

Obviously, there's no direct relation, since as far as I'm aware there's no Disney film about Richard III. (Not yet, anyway.) But it did make me think about how so often we twist the image of someone we perceive as evil into some sort of crooked, twisted creature whose outsides reflect their darker insides. The idea of Richard III as having a hunched back, a withered arm, and eating live frogs paints him as more monster than man, a caricature of his perceived villainy. I just found it quite funny that this odd description of Richard makes him appear almost as though he was an animated Disney villain, or a monster of legend. I feel like it says a lot about how we view villainous figures that we turn them into such deformed, hideous things when in reality they may not have been nearly so twisted- after all, I've certainly never heard about Richard III having a withered arm/hunch back/an appetite for live frogs. It could certainly be true, but I've still never heard it before.

Not Everything Is As It Seems

Not  everything  is  as  it  seems...

After  reading  chapters  1-9  of  The  Daughter  of  Time,  my  view  of  Richard  III  has  shifted  slightly.  I  have  never  really  paid  too  much  attention  to  all  the  kings  and  queens  in  England  because  there  are  so  many,  and  most  have  the  same  names,  but  Richard  III  from  what  I  have  heard  of  and  have  been  told  in  this  class,  seems  like  a  terrible  hunchbacked  villain  who  will  do  anything,  including  murder,  to  get  the  throne.  While  reading  The  Daughter  of  Time,  Alan  Grant  takes  us  on  a  journey  through  his  discoveries  of  Richard  III  and  his  belief  that  Richard  is  neither  a  hunchback  or  a  villain,  but  a  seemingly  innocent  man  that  was  portrayed  that  way  by  the  opposing  side.  Based  on  the  evidence  Grant  and  Carradine  has  come  up  with  so  far,  it  appears  impossible  for  Richard  III  to  have  killed  his  brother's children  in  order  to  get  to  the  throne.  Granted  I  have  yet  to  finish  the  book,  and  it  is  a  work  of  fiction  and  mystery,  this  research  seems  to  ring  true.  It  would  not  surprise  me  that  some  of  our  history  would  be  slightly  fabricated  or  strayed  away  from  the  truth  in  order  to  have  an  upper  hand  on  the  common  people  or  to  make  someone  else  look  better.

Looking  at  the  picture below,  tell  me, what  do  you  see?  A  happy  couple  together  or  an  abusive  relationship  in  disguise?  Do  you  think  either  would  be  capable  of  murder?  Below  is the  infamous  picture  of  Jodi  Arias  and  Travis  Alexander.  In  the  early  2000's,  Jodi  Arias  was  convicted  of  the  murder  of  Travis  Alexander,  her  ex-boyfriend  but  continuous  lover.  Based  on  sight  alone,  I  would  not  have  guessed  that  either  of  them  would  be  capable  of  murdering  anyone,  let  alone  the  other.  Unfortunately  pictures,  like  history, do  not  always  reveal  the  truth.  Richard  III  could  have  been  an  innocent  man  convicted  of  something  terrible,  instead  of  the  villain  he  is  known  for.  Jodi  Arias  could  have  been  convicted  for  a  crime  she  didn't  commit.  We  may  never  know  the  truth  of  what  occurred  between  Richard  III  and  his  nephews,  along  with  Jodi  Arias  and  Travis  Alexander.

Works Cited:
The  Daughter  of  Time  by  Josephine  Tey
Jodi  Arias  Murder  Case
Image  from  Google  Images

What is: History and Fiction

 
      I’ve found that history is made of events, actions, and people who are already either: dead, or their actions and cultures in/during a certain time have already occurred. It is an unchangeable series of facts – we can change the lasting causes and effects of those facts, but not history itself. Fiction is able to reflect, stem from, and interpret history while not being necessarily restricted by fact, though it may take people or events from the past for a figurative and/or entertaining purpose. Fiction is made up of stories that haven’t occurred, but have the potential to happen. It can affect the way people think, and that, while it may be influenced by history, so too can it affect history itself – an example being Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin.
       History, in the academic world, can be studied further mainly to find the motivation of the participants and/or to be aware of the people and events that took place. Literature, however, has the capability of transcending reality in order to create a discussion about a bigger picture which prompts reflection. That’s why novels that take place during the segregation era, for example, use history to talk about isolation and cruelty, whereas the historical event itself does not provide an opinion.

       

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b7/a1/23/b7a1233f2e1102a099e19865c8df0fc3.jpg

History- could it be fiction?

Maria Kelly
Dr. MB
ENGL 250- Section 1
January 21, 2018

History and Fiction

     History is the relaying of events that happened in the past. Fiction is something that did not actually happen and/or people that do not exist. Both are subjective, and both are able to be manipulated. History is usually factual, but as someone during our class discussion brought up, it can change and vary depending on the person who is relaying the events. Sometimes things might be considered part of “history” but they may not be fully factual due to the fact that all humans process information differently and therefore not everything or everyone is remembered in the same way. This can be proven by the evidence that many “historical” events are still being debated over and they are continually being changed by new facts and information that is received about them. Fiction, on the other hand, is not trying to be factual. While people are continually studying history and trying to get at the root of the facts, one of the students in class brought up the point that fiction is very much for entertainment. It’s not trying to be real, but rather exactly the opposite. Fiction is wonderful because it is not factual, and it is a means of escaping reality a lot of the time. People read or talk about history as things that really happened even if they may not have, but fiction is always known to not be true and so one cannot be deceived or mislead by it.

Fiction= pure enjoyment

The actual definition of history is the study of past events, particularly in human affairs (Google Dictionary). However, to me history is anything that is in the past, like the memory of playing sports for 12 years. History is anything that you want to put behind you. It is the old boyfriend that you dated for so long only to realized you both grew apart. History is the light going out as you close the door. It will be there to remind us what we went through and how hard it can be. History is something significant in our past, like the fact that George Washington was the first U.S. president. It is the fact that the present will soon be the past and continue to repeat itself if one does not learn the lessons from the mistakes made.
 The actual definition of fiction is the invention or fabrication as opposed to a fact but to me fiction is a made up story that maybe told for entertainment for example the story of the princess and the frog is fiction, you may not kiss a frog and turn it into a prince. Fiction is the simple stories that we tell children when, they are little, such as the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, and/or Santa Clause. Flying, laser vision, and super speed are examples of Superman a fictional character making his story fiction. Fiction creates a world of wonder and exploration in the mind of many people in the world. It allows us to express our fears, hopes, dreams at our own pace of control.

                           

The Analysis of History and Fiction

History  is  an  interesting  and  timeless  thing  that  always  builds  on  itself.  It  is  the  telling  of  true  events  about  someone's  life  or  an  event  that  occurred,  and  it  can  be  looked  upon  for  future  lessons  about  life.  One  must  take  it  with  a  grain  of  salt  because  it  can  be  biased,  unreliable,  and  inaccurate.
Fiction  was  mainly  created  for  entertainment  and  the  telling  of  a  protagonist  against  an  antagonist  in  a  series  of  events.  Sometimes  it  can  be  a  reflection  about  the  authors  own  journey  through  life  through  a  fabrication  of  their  character(s)  and  how  they  handled  life's  hurdles.  Fiction  can  also  be  used  to  reflect  on  a  previous,  recent  or  possible future  event. Fiction  is  not  a  lie;  it  is  an  exaggerated  version  of  the  author’s  beliefs  and  truths.
Both  history  and  fiction  tell  a  story  with  characters,  events,  and  journeys  through  someone  else's  eyes.  Sometimes  this  story  telling  is  not  always  honest  or  reliable  because  facing  the  truth  of  what  really  happened  is  too  much,  so  the  author  or  the  famous  person  may  have  lied  or  glossed  over  certain  events  to  make  themselves  or  their  character(s)  look  better.  No  one  is  perfect,  and  true  history  and  fiction  is  revealing  the  good,  the  bad,  and  the  ugly  about  people  and  events  so  others  will  not  make  the  same  mistakes.

Works  Cited:
Classmates  from  discussion  on  1/17/18
Image from Google Images

Fiction vs History

Fiction and history share many similar traits. They can both be ways to understand the past. They are both a byproduct of human beings and the "stories" that they create. The difference is that fiction is a fabricated story and history is a story with some evidence to support that it happened in reality and wasn't just made up. One of my sources says that "even if [newspaper articles] slant the truth they are intended to be read as factual" which makes them nonfiction (www.creative-writing-now.com). Maybe exaggerating the truth becomes history itself so that is why it isn't fiction? Who can say for certain?
Another difference is the root of the words themselves. History comes from a Greek word and fiction comes from Latin. The Greek word Historia was used to mean a person who made judgement based on facts from investigations (http://www.whatishistory.org/). Fictio is the Latin word that fiction comes from and means "molding" or "fashioning" (https://www.britannica.com/art/fiction-literature). From the definitions of the root words it is made clear that history is used to express events that happen in the world based on facts that could be used as evidence in support of those events. Fiction was never meant to have facts supporting whether the events in the fabricated story actually happened or not. The reason the two can be confused is because of the truth that there are documents used as evidence in support of history that were created with the intent to deceive. It is in this area that fiction and history tend to blend together and get confused.

• http://www.whatishistory.org/
• https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fiction
• https://www.britannica.com/art/fiction-literature
• https://www.creative-writing-now.com/what-is-fiction.html

You Said You Wanted A Snarky Name So Here’s A New One Since The Old One Wasn’t Good Enough

History is, to put it basically, any event that occurred in the past. Technically speaking, history can be as early as yesterday since it's in the past (though honestly most people would probably consider that current events), or as far back as ten thousand years ago. History is usually thought of as more specifically focused on past events of key importance; for example, it's pretty likely that nobody would care what a King had for breakfast a couple hundred years ago, but they would care about the outcome of one of his wars. We also usually only consider things that we know actually happened as true history- if there's no historical record of an event occurring, then it cannot be called history, because we do not know for certain if it actually occurred.

Fiction, meanwhile, is a record of often made-up or at least highly embellished events or people, created for the purpose of entertainment. For example, consider the stories of King Arthur. While it is possible that some of it is based in historical account, most of it is likely fictionalized legend. Was there actually a King Arthur? Probably not, but he could have been based loosely on someone. Likewise, things like dragons never existed.



SOURCES:
Dictionary.com
Wikipedia.org
https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-history-collection-of-definitions-171282

Clearly this is the ‘exciting’ adaptation we deserve.