Oh no..

In the Scottish play, Macbeth has a soliloquy in act one scene seven. What does this mean? He talks to himself like a mad man for a long time. The whole things is simply him fighting with himself about if he should kill Duncan or not. Its a huge problem because on one hand, he would then be king and be able to have anything he wants. And it could be done successfully. But on the other hand Duncan is a member of his family and his king. It would be wrong to betray him like that.  So he is basically having a debate with himself of should i do it, or should i not?


I have one minor problem, as national novel writing month
Begins its approach: What story should i deem worth of being put to paper, and how
is a story deemed unworthy; What is it
that i should spend my time writing about,
and who am I, to decide, what others will want to read.  A story
of friendship that fails each other; that takes the reader on a trip, and, breaks them apart, Later
to come back at me with anger; or should it be written
of gore and malice and hatred and horror to make my own heart fear. I have never written;
Of fear, or gore that makes someone scared, so that should pull me away from that path; but also,
I have never written to break a readers heart, so how could i possibly chose. And what, do I
know, I am not a professional, yet how can I make the choice of what others will want to read,
But i have read all my life, i have some experience in picking books, and what is in good taste; but is it really for everyone; Of course not, so i am left to think, heart breaking or horrifying, both viable options,both very doable and yet I still cant chose. I have no idea,but maybe some tea, will help calm my mind.

I'll Make a Man Out Of You!

What it means to be a man? To be swift as the coursing rive, with all the force of a great Typhoon with all the strength of a raging fire mysterious as the dark side of the moon! Question answered class dismissed have a great day!

Okay all kidding aside, I really have to say I don’t like this question, because the cultural answer is kind of . . . depressing? Like never cry, don’t look weak, protect women because they can’t take care of themselves, be muscular, have “SWAG” be gangster, school isn’t as important. Well that’s what the Media tells me anyways. Is that why I stopped watching T.V? Maybe so.

In my family it’s a little different. Being a man in my family’s case means taking care of the family, even when you have had a bad day listen to the other family members. It means up early on Saturday, to clean everything up and out the door. It means shedding a tear is showing strength.

Okay, so I don’t really leave my house often, I am a littler hermit. But when I do get to be around guys (It is mostly in school) I always seem to hear them tailing about what girl is the hottest, or cursing excessively. Or talking about what’s going on in sports. I feel like today in our culture even in a pathetic population of a couple hundred adolescent teens who have no idea what is going on, it all about Image.

These expectations are not only unrealistic but can define how a male is viewed by society. If a male is quiet and reserved, sometimes he could be judged and declared abnormal, or a lover. Which In some places is admired, but more often than not the young man would be written off as a reject. Simply for not following the “Norm” If a young man is slight, has glasses, and prefers to study. He is a nerd, and can't be cool (In today’s culture we are more accepting of nerds.) But if a guy walks around swearing, talks down, talks about how many girls he gets he’s suddenly cool.

Just watching all the males in y life, family friends, and friend’s parents. I can say that these ideas are not correct.  My grandfather was a hardworking man, who as a teenager was slight, wore thick rimmed glasses, defined in appearance as a nerd. But he was a great man who would get up go to work even if he wasn’t feeling well. He refused to take time off of work. His only goal was to take care of our family. He was what I came to see as the proper man. My friend’s father who I call papa is fun loving and enjoyable to be around. Another example of what a man is, even though he was big into sports. So no I feel now a days and even back a few generations men still strayed from the “Ideals.” 

Was Shakespeare really Shakespeare

Allen

World lift.

            

Shakespeare was a woman?

Most people don’t think about asking questions about William Shakespeare as a play right. However, there is actually a huge controversy surrounding the man. While he is supposedly an accomplished playwright it appears that he has never owned book, written a letter much less a play.  Furthermore he was not an educated man, also Shakespeare was the name of an actor in the company and it is impossible to say if he was the same man or a different one that wrote the plays.

The Oxfordians are a group of people that believe Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford was the man who wrote the Shakespeare plays. He was a well-traveled Nobleman and well educated man who they believe to be more likely to have written the plays. Seeing as Shakespeare was a no name man in a small town.   While the Stratfordians believe that of course, William Shakespeare wrote his own works leave him alone.  The globe was in his name, and was given a coat of arms for his works. He was proven to be a real person and then to further anger the Oxfordians it is pointed out that this would not be the first uneducated man rising above what is supposed to happen to them.

Christopher Marlowe he was a Victorian tragedy writer the best of his time. He was supposedly William Shakespeare greatest inspiration. Though they were born in the same years Marlowe received a better education. He was an alleged government spy. Even his autobiography had the word spy in i

I can’t pick a side because neither has been proven right or wrong and I 

personally would love to believe that Shakespeare was indeed the author 

of his own works. However, there is a strong opposition and I can’t bring 

myself to rule it out. It was so far back in history that it is difficult to track.  

It is a topic for the oxfordians and the stratfordians to debate and discuss.


Why would someone want to use the name of a poor boy from no where to 

publish their writing?



Do you side with the Oxfordian or the stratfordian side? Do you believe there is a right or wrong? Should we even be questioning?





Sources


https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Oxfordian_theory.html

http://www.shakespeare-online.com/faq/shakepeareauthorship.html