"Hope" is the thing with feathers-

"Hope" is the thing with feathers-
That perches in the soul-
And sings the tune without the words-
And never stops- at all-

And sweetest- in the Gale- is heard-
And sore must be the storm-
That could abash the little Bird
That kept so many warm-

I've heard it in the chillest land-
And on the strangest Sea-
Yet, never, in Extremity,
It asked a crumb- of Me.


A little thing to keep us going over the iniment looming winter. A sweet little poem.

Riddle by Emily Dickinson

Can you guess what she is describing?

Blazing in Gold and quenching in Purple

Leaping like Leopards to the Sky

Then at the feet of the old Horizon

Laying her spotted Face to die

Stooping as low as the Otter's Window

Touching the Roof and tinting the Barn

Kissing her Bonnet to the Meadow

And the Juggler of the Day is gone

"He didn't resist temptation. He pursued it": The Libertine Culture

Apart from Johnny Depp being deliciously hot, I love the film the libertine. As historical romps go, it is historically quite factual but what gets me the most is how the film captures the beginning of this type of English culture. Libertarianism.

The libertine culture arose from the reassertion of the "one-sex" theory of sexuality caused by the formation of the materialist ideas that emerged with the enlightenment. These materialist ideas were based on the belief that the only thing proven to exist was matter (resulting in spiritually nonexistent discourse) and therefore sex became, as Erasmus Darwin penned: "the purest source of human felicity, the cordial drop in the otherwise vapid cup of life". The "one-sex" theory in the 18th century was based on these materialist ideas and also the humoral model, which believed men and women were anatomically the same.

The "one-sex" theory promulgated that both men and women were to enjoy sex. They both had the same genitalia according to the humoral model; the male genitalia, due to their dry and hot nature, had descended unlike women's, who were cold and wet and remained inverted. It was for this reason that women were supposed to crave sex with the men to obtain the male's semen because their imperfect organs were unable to produce it. Women were also supposed to enjoy sex because otherwise they would not be able to conceive a child.

Eighteenth century thinkers came to consider the pursuit of pleasure a human obligation. The senses were the primary mediators between the individual and the world, which compelled individuals to avoid pain and to pursue pleasure, which came to license sexual indulgence. The tagline to the film The Libertine, based on the dissolute life of John Wilmot, the Earl of Rochester a notorious rake and poet, was : "He didn't resist temptation. He pursued it". This is interesting. I know that the film is about a man and therefore "He" is a suitable prenoun to use in this tagline. However, I think it also shows, perhaps accidentally, the underlying hypocrisy and gendering of the libertine culture. In theory, based upon the "one-sex" model, men and women are to both equally enjoy sex because they were fundamentally the same. But was this the case? Did all women enjoy this freedom? Or were they called, as they had been for years before a whore or harlot?

Marriage was a mode of business and was not based on the later Romantic ideal of marrying for love. The wife could consider herself free after producing an heir to choose and enjoy other sexual partners, but until the heir was born the wife was under her husband duress. If the husband misbehaved however, it was usually tolerated. This double standard remained a constant throughout the centuries and was not removed fully in this era. Women were still bound to their maternal obligation and materialist libertinism failed to overcome this pillar of patriarchy. It was acceptable for men to keep mistresses and to recognise their bastard children, as men's promiscuity was seen less harmful than women's. The "natural" discourse that had dominated the Enlightenment (eg. Locke and his discussion on the state of nature) both liberated and incarcerated women. It allowed them to enjoy sex but the woman's biological role as a mother was considered a sacred duty and hemmed her back into the her separate sphere of the home.

Yet among many of the female elites there was a brutal frankness and indifference to the religious taboos that had held sway under Charles I's reign and earlier. In Restoration England until the late 18th century elite women rivaled men in their sexual activities, as Lady Mary Wortley Montagu criticises: female adultery was "esteemed a fashionable vice than a crime".

She was not the only one to criticise. Another lady remarks that there was a group of ladies "who would have all been affronted, had you supposed there had been a grain of conjugal fidelity among them"!! This shows that not all practiced this sexual libertinism themselves and many distanced themselves from it, but they unreservedly accepted it as a matter of course. It is notable, however, that these remarks come from the 18th century. Now, libertinism seems to be grating against the English culture, particularly the one to emerge in the late 18th century: Evangelicalism.

The Enlightenment world was still patriarchal. The film The Libertine is particularly good at showing the relationships between men and women in the Restoration era. John Wilmot/Rochester is in control of many of his relationships. His wife panders to his needs unable to do anything about his drinking, sexual conduct and his sharp wit, which got him expelled from Charles II's court for a time. His wife knows what is going on when he is in London but cannot stop him from going there, neither does she have a lover or a sexual life outside of him. London is seen as the centre of vice and folly, and indeed many ways it was with its numerous taverns and brothels. Rochester with his mistresses also demonstrates his complete control over them. "You're not falling in love with me, are you?" He asks. She shakes her head and gives some pithy reply but the audience knows that she is smitten! She dare not say otherwise or she will lose him. In the end however, the woman he truly loves has complete control of him. Love conquers all, I suppose. Regardless of this, she manages to refuse to let him control her whilst he teaches her the art of acting, she doesn't tell him she has a child as she provides her own way, and she makes her own way. However, she is different from Rochester's wife. She had to provide a heir. It was her duty and it was her social status as an elite that hindered her. Arguably she was almost more moral than Rochester's acting mistress. Still, overall the male was in control.

The film The Duchess continues the theme of this licentious sexual behaviour but in the 18th century. The husband here is also in control. He treats her appallingly, but she takes her lovers after this. She is both the neglected wife and the mistress. This film too is based on a real life person, one Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire in the 1790s who lived in a real life menage a trois with her husband who had taken her close companion Lady Elizabeth Foster, as his mistress. She in turn took a lover, an up and coming political figure for the Whig party. Together, her and her husband, his mistress and her lover caused so much gossip.

Determined to be a player in the wider affairs typically male, she proved that she could out-gamble out-drink and outwit most of the aristocratic men. She helped usher in sweeping changes to England as a leader of the forward-thinking Whig Party. Her power and popularity grew.
But when she tried to be true to herself and loyal to her duties she found herself pushed to the brink of risking banishment by her husband, family and all of London society when her controversies and convoluted association creep up on her. Even she had restrictions upon her life. This libertinism seems a fallacy. Was it really a libertarian society at all?

John Wilmot/Rochester ends up dying a most grusome death from syphilis, a reminder of his naughty ways in life. It hardly shows libertinism as liberating in the end. John Wilmot is a character tortured by his own nature and ways. Of course, films aren't the way to judge how it actually was, but they do popularise history and shows the basic facts.

Essentially these are good watches and have a genuine historical basis. I love it! Libertinism is a complicated matter in this time...

Tune in next time folks to hear about the 'change' from libertinism to Evangelicalism and the "moral panics"!

Aha! Taking hold of my life! FINALLY!

Yay! I have been bold and have finally applied for some work experience- I think it is a rather bold move, but hopefully they will take me up on the offer!!

I have had enough of not knowing what I am doing so I have decided to have a go at everything! yay...

yeah, that's it really... XXX

Harry Potter, my one constant in turbulance

I feel I have neglected to write about my one constant and solace in this blog, and as the title of this blog shows their time to shine has arrived... yes, indeed it is the multi-million or rather billion pound character: HARRY POTTER.

Now, I had only just begun to get into reading through the 'Babysitters' books and the Judy Blume young teen reads at around the time the first Harry Potter book became famous (Harry Potter and The Philosopher's Stone for those of you who don't know). I was given it by my best mate who I had known since I was three years old at dance and went to both primary and secondary school with. At that time I didn't know that she would later be the bane of my existence at school whilst she and my group of mates decided they didn't like me anymore on a whim and as childish behaviour goes made my life hell. With all my friends 'turned to the dark side' as it were, I was left alone. (By the way, please no heartstring violins, this is just a true account of events from my rather biased and probably still slightly bitter opinion!!)

Now Harry had entered my life and I was grateful. I sat reading in the library devouring each word, the witty repartee between the three main characters, the tussle with Draco Malfoy and the adventures they experienced rather wishing I could be at Hogwarts rather than my school. Now it was here that I met a fellow 'reject', who sat in the library avoiding those who are far too cool to ever enter the library even to pick on the wimps!! Now, we bonded in our mutual geekiness and our new founded love of reading Harry Potter. She loved to criticise it and I loved to praise it! We rocked around the school in our own world, okay so it was mainly hanging out in the library with Mrs Lord, the generally hated librarian, who gave us the newest books she had just bought and recommended some of the best books in the world I have ever read. (Well they were poignant at the time!!)

I missed out the second book for some reason and I read the third book first, then when my brother got the second one for Christmas and I saw it was being abused i.e. being used to prop up his various piles of junk in his room, I stole it and read it! It was amazing! Even better than the first I thought! The adventure was getting even more dangerous!! But I am not entirely sure that was what captured my heart. I held a bias for this book because it beat being me hands down! True, I didn't have a psychopathic wizarding killer after me but sometimes I thought at least I knew what I was fighting if I was in Harry Potter land.

It was the Christmas 2000 I received the fourth Harry Potter book as a present the following day my parents split up. The book was my comfort. It amazes me now how I can set my life against the publishing of the Harry Potter novels. In 2003 I believe the fifth book was published alongside this event, almost to the date, my parents got back together. Now I realise that it was just a coincidence, but believe me it was comforting to know that a fictional character though he might have been was having ups and downs of his own. In the meantime I learnt to almost memorise these four books with scarily accurate precision! thankfully now I have moved on to read other things and become slightly less obsessive!

Now I am rereading the Harry Potter series again for the umpteenth time and believe me I doubt it will be for the last time. I have worked out that they are still very much a part of me and I can see what I saw in them and I am still finding new bits out, discovering pieces that make me laugh and make me cry that hadn't before. Today, however, I read it for fun not for escapism (though arguably reading is escapism). I can set store my life by these books and I have been every character within them, starting with the bullied Neville Longbottom, to the comic and most insensitive of characters Ron Weasley, to Harry himself the head of the group, the troubled one and most prized, to feeling like Hermione, clever but not amazingly brave like Harry, or funny like Ron, to today where I know resemble a mix between Dumbledore and Snape. It is an awkward mix I should probably explain more but for the fear of exposing myself too readily on the internet I shall just say I have the ounce of badness that was in Snape, mixed with the warped pure desire to have what he loved, and then Dumbledore the quiet noble hero with somewhat of a blind spot, a habit to make grave mistakes and perhaps thinking he was too smart for his own good but otherwise is a good judge of character. It goes deeper... but let's leave it there tonight folks!

Overall, Harry Potter has been praised for its mastery in bringing kids literature back too life, for getting kids to read again and for mingling adult and children fiction in one. On the other hand, it has been damned in America for its heathen manners (hum... mebbe another blog is due on this!!) and by others for its poor literary quality and banal plotting etc etc. Either way you can't claim that all those millions of copies of books sold in many different languages, with the popularity it has made in book, film, game and merchandise that it cannot be a poor read. Something must draw the masses... perhaps each of us a personal attachment to the books and for that they should be praised and JK too for reaching to the child and adult alike!!

Signing off... Night XXX

Charlotte Bronte and Jane Eyre I: Ahead of Her Time?

I have completely fallen in love with Jane Eyre, the supposed plain governess who dares falls in love with the master. Charlotte Bronte stirred up a hornet's nest with her plot involving Jane returning to Mr Rochester not knowing that his wife had died (sorry for ruining the plot for those who have not read it- I should have put a plot spoiler warning before I started!) This was shocking for her time when a woman's character was the basis of maintaining her social status and that hinting at the possibility of fornication and/or adultery was seriously frowned upon in this rising moralising middle class, which was forming contemporaneously to the writing of this novel. It is especially shocking for the reader even today that Jane returns to Rochester because she represents the moral conscious of the book (especially when contrasted to such characters as Rochester who has led a dissolute life in some ways and Bertha who is mad nymphomaniac.) This slightly unusual deviance from the accepted norm is something I loved about the novel. Charlotte Bronte's mouthpiece, Jane, expostulates some rather forward-thinking ideas, which really grabbed my attention:

"Women are supposed to be very calm generally: but women feel just as men feel; they need exercise for their faculties, and a field for their efforts, as much as their brothers do; they suffer from too rigid a restraint, too absolute a stagnation, precisely as men would suffer; and it is narrow-minded in their more privileged fellow-creatures to say that they ought to confine themselves to making puddings and knitting stockings, to playing on the piano and embroidering bags. It is thoughtless to condemn them, or laugh at them, if they seek to do more or learn more than custom has pronounced necessary for their sex."

I was initially grabbed by the equalising tone of this passage; that women require a similar freedom to what their "brothers" possess. The more recent version of feminism has alienated society and particularly men with the often antagonistic pronouncements that women are better then men. As an aside, I disagree, and in fact we are beginning to replicate the 'male oppressors' of old and equality is most definitely no longer what a lot have feminists have sought. They seek to surpass this. However, getting back on course.... Jane Eyre, or more particularly Charlotte Bronte through Jane, explains her own restricted feelings of a woman who could have no other role in society other than a governess or a wife. This passage proclaiming women's equality to men is really unique. It was written at a time when feminism- loathing to use such an anachronistic term-was really just kicking off; women were beginning to question their confined roles.

I believe Charlotte wrote Jane Eyre as a firm critique of society by showing what life was like for a woman bound by few options and also that to achieve happiness that some things would have to be sacrificed- like Jane's morality. In this view it seems a grim portrayal, but to the readers reading Jane Eyre today, we think "Good on her" since our moral values have altered somewhat over time. Still we still recognise the confinement of women in this time, with this moral obligation and of this class.

So, Charlotte Bronte the premature feminist? Maybe, but she definitely was a woman wanting more for her sex!