Okay, here we go. Rating literary allusions in Taylor Swift songs:
The Outside: "I tried to take the road less traveled by /but nothing seems to work the first few times/am I right?"--Starting off pretty well! She tried to take the road less traveled by, but it didn't make any difference. 8/10
Love Story: Whole song allusion to Romeo and Juliet-- All those 2008 jokes about Taylor not having read R&J weren't funny then and they aren't funny now. It's a fun, satisfying subversion. However, I am going to dock points for the fact that Romeo and Juliet aren't a prince and princess, just rich. 7/10
Love Story: "You were Romeo/I was a scarlet letter"--Is the Juliet character in "Love Story" being publicly shamed? Did she do something scandalous? There are zero other lines in this song to suggest that she did, and a fair amount of evidence that she didn't. This allusion confuses rather than clarifies and tbh this is the one people should've made fun of in 2008. 2/10
New Romantics: "We show off our different scarlet letters/ trust me, mine is better" --Hooray! She figured out what the book is about! This is a beautifully executed allusion, where "scarlet letters" represents a mark of something shameful which, in a fun subversion, is being shown off with pride. Fits the song really well. Most improved award, 11/10
Getaway Car: "It was the best of times, the worst of crimes" (A Tale of Two Cities) -- Goes in the category of "fun wordplay, but doesn't really mean anything deeper" 5/10
This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things: "Feeling so Gatsby for that whole year" --This is a perfectly serviceable allusion, but not a super interesting one. Sub "Gatsby" out with "nostalgic" and the song wouldn't change at all. She could've done a lot more with the reference, given the subject matter of the song. 6/10
cardigan: "I knew you/tried to change the ending/Peter losing Wendy" -- This works! You get a sense of Betty losing her innocence and choosing to leave James and of it being inevitable somehow. Plus, it imbues the song with a lovely fairy tale quality. 10/10
illicit affairs: "take the road less traveled by/tell yourself you can always stop" -- To take the road less traveled by is to do something risky, unpopular, or unfamiliar, not just to take a route through town where you won't run into people. Not totally egregious, but the regression from Debut is disappointing. 4/10
invisible string: "and isn't it just so pretty to think/ that all along there was some/ invisible string tying you to me."(The Sun Also Rises)--Ugggggh. Okay, so "Isn't it pretty to think so?" is this sad, tired, ironic note in The Sun Also Rises. Brett tells Jake, "We could have had a damned good time together" and Jake says "Isn't it pretty to think so?" because their whole situationship was never going to work. It's not a positive thing; it's pure, bitter Lost Generation irony. Completely out-of-place in a song about how two people we're supposed to believe will actually work as a couple. This one drives me nuts, and I don't even like Hemingway. 0/10
happiness: "I hope she'll be a beautiful fool/ who takes my spot next to you" (Gatsby)--Saying this about an ex's future SO is so... off. Like, the reason why Daisy hopes her daughter will be a beautiful fool is because it's easy. The two situations have nothing to do with one another, and not in an interesting way. 1/10
The Albatross: whole song allusion to "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner," but most notably "She's the albatross/ she is here to destroy you"--The albatross in the Rime is a good omen. The Mariner shoots is for no reason, and the albatross's death is the ostensible source of bad fortune. I wrote a whole separate post on this here. That said, culturally "albatross=bad omen" is common enough, so whatever. 3/10
I Hate It Here: "I will go to secret gardens in my mind/ people need a key to get to/ the only one is mine" -- I like this one a lot. Exactly the right vibe for the song, trying to escape something miserable by going somewhere pleasant. The key is a nice touch. Poor Archibald. 10/10
The Prophecy: "I got cursed like Eve got bitten" --No Taylor, that's not what happened. Famously, Eve was the biter in that situation. 0/10
Cassandra: whole song allusion -- correct me if I'm wrong (I haven't actually read the Illiad), but my understanding is that Cassandra died fairly far into the Trojan war, and not by burning. 4/10
62 notes
·
View notes
So I started a commonplace book recently. For those of you who don't know what that is, as I did not until quite recently, a commonplace book is a collection of sorts, but rather than things, such as stamps or rocks, it is words, ideas, and quotes.
In looking for such things I have begun to read, though not in order but in any way I please, A Writer's Commonplace Book by Rosemary Freidman.
I have found it quite entertaining, but not for the reasons it was intended to be. It is mixed with a number of lovely quotes that I quite agree with, examples of these being:
"You write in order to say the things you can't say. It's a cry, or a scream or a song." -Samuel Beckett
"...writers are supposed to make you laugh and cry. That's what mankind is looking for." Saul Bellow
These quotes prove to be quite intelligent and well-picked, but as you read you find that quotes such as these are rare. In a book consisting of two hundred and fifty pages one should expect to find some mediocre or nonsensical quotes, but what one finds within these pages is quite strange. There are many quotes that directly contradict each other and some that seem to be picked at random and solely for the name attached with none of the ideals of the writer reflected within and for a book published in the modern year of 2007 it seems to have some outdated ideals. Examples include:
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." -Samuel Johnson
"I worked with a pencil and what I wrote my wife copied afterward." -Anthony Trollope
"There are too many books published. It is one of the evils of democracy." -T. S. Eliot
These quotes may mean other things within their context, but it is out of context that they are taken and set into a book which claims to uphold literature. Is it not strange that such a book, written by a scholarly woman, would hold such views?
25 notes
·
View notes
a reminder
I hope even after being broken down, crushed a million times, you get up and have the courage to start again. Life throws countless rocks at you but know that you can shield from it. Because you're strong. You can embrace your life, as it should be. The past scars shouldn't stop or affect the present or future but sometimes it does and it is okay for it to be. Nature wasn't always supposed to be all springs and summers and you aren't always supposed to be happy. You see, beautiful rainbows in horizons emerge after big pellets of rain. So, you will also heal and be happy even after the storms. You'll shine even more brighter. These are words you probably tell others but you should tell yourself that too. Because you deserve it and you need it too.
26 notes
·
View notes
I've been thinking about making a post discussing various interpretations of Hyde for a while now, but I thought I'd first go into some depth about a very relevant topic: Jekyll's reliability as a narrator. Most of the book happens around Jekyll and he isn't in very much of it, but we do get to hear from him in the final chapter. The first assumption is that the account he gives is entirely accurate and conveys most of the relevant information (minus what he actually wants and gets up to). It is possible that this is true, but it's also entirely possible that he skipped over some details or lied about things and I'd like to talk about both possibilities.
I'll start off with the idea of him being entirely reliable. This does make sense. This is Jekyll's final explanation for everything to his closest friend. It makes sense that he would want to get everything out, to finally tell his friend exactly what he's been hiding from him and remove all the secrets. He would want to give Utterson some closure and it also gives him a chance to get everything off his chest. He has been quite literally living a double life for a very long time. He has also been struggling with his unacceptable desires for so much of his life. That's got to be a great weight on a person. It would probably be a relief to finally let that out somewhere. He knows he can trust Utterson and, even if he couldn't, he doesn't care what happens to him anymore. He has essentially resigned himself to death so his reputation really doesn't matter anymore. He allows Utterson to do whatever he wants with the statement so he has clearly given up. It makes sense for him to be honest. It makes sense for him to finally stop hiding and find some small relief in coming clean. These are essentially his final words to anyone ever. It makes sense for your last words to be completely true and honest, especially if they are to the person you trust most in the world.
Yet, what if he isn't? We know he doesn't reveal everything. He doesn't say at any point what his actual aim was in creating Hyde. He doesn't say what he wanted and he doesn't reveal much about Hyde's actions that Utterson didn't already know. Jekyll does still conceal things, so perhaps there is more he is hiding. As much as it makes sense for him to tell the truth, it also makes sense for him to lie. He has been so obsessed with his reputation for decades. He has kept up this illusion of perfection and went to all the trouble of splitting his soul and creating an alter ego to prevent anyone from finding out about what he really wants to do. He lied to his best friends to keep elements of himself hidden. Would he really be able to give that up now? Yes, he has accepted his fate and he allows Utterson to know that he and Hyde were the same person, but it would be difficult to actually let everything out after all this time. Jekyll thinks very highly of Utterson and he wants Utterson to like him. He wants everyone to like him, but the opinion of his close friend would be especially important. He has to tell him something, but perhaps he doesn't want to tell him everything. He refers to Hyde like another person, but perhaps he just wants Utteraon to continue to view them as separate. He talks about how bad he felt about everything and about how Hyde was truly the evil one, but perhaps that's just the way he wishes he felt. Imagine having a secret which you have never shared with anyone out of shame and fear. Could you really just switch all of that off and share it with the person whose opinion matters most? I'm not sure that I could, so I'm not sure if Jekyll could either. He also leaves it to Utterson as a letter which he could share with anyone, if he chose. Of course, he probably thinks that Utterson would keep it to himself, but he has the freedom to do what he wants with it. Reputation is everything to Jekyll and he might not be able to hand everything over to potentially destroy it.
A lot of the book is left open to interpretation. That's one of the things I love about it. I've seen people treat Jekyll's statement as the full truth of the matter, as I usually do. It is called his 'Full Statement of the Case', after all. However, I've also seen people talk about it as only partially true, an attempt to clean what little of his reputation remains. Both interpretations make complete sense with the narrative. Really, Jekyll is as reliable or unreliable as you say he is. It's fun to think about the different angles of it, what he may or may not be thinking and feeling as he writes his last words to Utterson. As I said, the things left unclear are what make the book as effective as it is and keep people talking about it so many years later.
24 notes
·
View notes
so im doing a preliminary translation course french-dutch in january which if i do it well enough i can do the real course starting september, and you dont need any official recognition of your level in either language they just say you have to master your working language (ie dutch here) well and that your passive knowledge of your source language has to be good, around at least b2
and, okay, ive been told i do set too high standards, but like, that feels,,,,,cheating isnt exactly the word but like. if i couldnt make the sentence, then how could i ever hope to translate it well into another language you know what i mean?
im glad, because my chances are way better to get my passive french to b2 than my active french before january, im probably already there, but like, im still gonna try to get my active french there too right?
like it just feels so.....precarious. to only have b2 and to dare to try and put a sentence into your own language? if i couldnt have made the sentence, then i would never think i can write it as correctly as possible in another language. honestly.
11 notes
·
View notes