We Must Look at What We Seek to Accomplish

 

 

Shakespeare Wrote Commercial Fiction–The Battle Between Literary & Commercial Fiction

 

 

 

Image via Wikimedia Commons (Source The Washington Times)

 

I am 59 years old and sometimes I prefer movies and TV shows my generation used to watch. It was called family entertainment. They were layered with something for everyone. Children would laugh and adults enjoy the children and the entertainment. The children and teenagers, and young adults were not old enough to understand what was said. Now, I enjoy them the more so because the layers and complexities made the difference and I still discover much.

Many TV shows and movies today leave me with an empty feeling after a period of time. The difference is they are geared to a certain audience level with very little to ponder about. The special effects are fantastic but I compare them with books that have pictures and few words. When I watch them again I don’t receive much of anything else.

But those from my youth I still can watch them over and over again and many agree with me. It seems those who are teenagers today are more interested by Adult Swim than by anything on TV and at the movies. My granddaughter age 16 would leave it tuned to that station all night and day if I didn’t change the channel.

I never read Shakespeare. I thought I was not interested in poetry at the time but that is another story. A few years ago my Wifie-Poo and I recorded a CD of 28 minutes of playtime in my room. It was not planned or rehearsed. We were just having fun. I call her my Wifie-Poo because we were not legally married but we were one flesh sanctioned only by God.

We could not afford the low income marriage penalties specifically designed for people who receive General Assistance, Social Security Insurance, or Social Security Disability Insurance. It was difficult at best because of the restrictions low income housing puts on all of the renters. They can change without notice and you will find yourself homeless again.

Wifie-Poo had me read I think Sonet 130. It was fun and funny how she coached me along to read it. Finally she let me loose to read it in its entirety. Low and behold I knew Shakespeare was a Black man. Only a Black man knows and about and how to talk to a black woman like that.

 

SONNET 130 with my commentary:

My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun;

(her eye’s are brown far from blue)

Coral is far more red than her lips' red;

(her lips are not red. Coral is “orange pink” is far more close to red than her lips)

If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;

(her beast are not white. The color of dun is black)

If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.

(Black women did not have hair products so often their hair was called wiry or nappy)

I have seen roses damasked, red and white,

(She was a rose with her mask removed not red and white)

But no such roses see I in her cheeks;

(She is a Black women, her cheeks don’t turn red when she blushes)

And in some perfumes is there more delight

(And in some perfumes,

Is there more delight?

punctuation)

Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.

(Her breath is more sweet smelling than in some purfumes)

I love to hear her speak,

Yet well I know
That music hath a far more pleasing sound;

 

(Her voice may have been soothing and sultry like Sade and Anita Baker. Yet he knows the sound of music is supposed to be more pleasing than the sound of her voice.)

 

I grant I never saw a goddess go;
My mistress, when she walks,

Treads! on the ground:

(He called her a goddess

and he never seen a goddess

as she walks

leave tread marks as she goes)

And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
As any she belied with false compare.

(This is a double negative and cancels each other out or it is done for emphasis. This Black woman can be compared to none other)

Sonet 130 could be enjoyed by “common” people, but there are references that captivated, challenged, and even upset the highly educated. To think Shakespeare holds a Black woman to be more reverenced and esteemed than a white woman? Preposterous the men said! That is scandalous the women said. He is a Black man Chaplain Winston Muldrew said.

But even to this very day the highly educated won’t let on to the common people what Shakespeare meant. They would lynch him in his time if they ever knew what he meant. It was so layered. Layered can mean you use the same words for child and adult. The maturity level not age determines understanding.

 

My goal was to enter in the dialogs and exchange of ideas of the world, to make friends and influence others and to be influenced by others. This discussion is exactly what I want to do in the Shakespearian style. He knew how to reach a multitude of people. In online university I was taught authors have to know who their audience or write to a specific audience. I just write not actually knowing who my audience is. What I do know is I like to write and research. In the process of time I discovered that I had an audience. My blog has been viewed by many countries in the world. And I discovered the best critics are the global virtual community of writers.

What do you think the state of the State should be?

 

 

Look closely at the U.S. symbol for justice. It is a woman in a male dominated society. That has she is blindfolded so she can not see and does not have to see. You can not judge something that has been seen. The remedy for that is they have tipped the scales in favor of government. Our government is a republic. Justice for us is not balanced. They always lean to the same way. They always lean towards the law and the dictate of the law that is constantly being changed by lawmakers.

Theocracy: the problem began for us when we decided to not be under Theocracy. We wanted government. We were warned that government is a cruel taskmaster but we wanted anyway. So there you have it in a nut shell.

Under Theocracy marriage was not a legal matter. Government did not exist for us. It was not up to the government to license. It was not up the men and women of Church to provide wedding festivals. It was not necessary.  

Thousands of years after we decided we wanted government to be our slave master you have to be married to make it legitimate. We did not object for we did not know what that meant. Under Theocracy we become one flesh male and female. Under government the courts are not held to any constraints. We don’t understand a legal document. It is not written for our understanding by government constraint.

So what has one flesh become? A legal marriage. So how do define marriage. It is up to the government to decide. How can government decide what marriage is? For one we gave our rights to be one flesh and condemned the practice. One flesh has been redefined as marriage. Marriage is not a union of a male and a female. Marriage is a union between a male and a female, and government with government dictating the terms of marriage. The Church has been successful in redefining one flesh into their ideas of marriage.

Now, they have dictated what constitutes marriage is not intent to procreate. The purpose of marriage is to take in orphans or procreate. Same sex marriages can take care of orphans and opposite sex marriages can take care of procreation. But it still remains and will always remain becoming one flesh under Theocracy.

Why be concerned about government when we have Theocracy? Who can condemn us? Who can separate us? No not one.

Under Theocracy everything is taken care of. Under government they tip the scale towards the government, blind fold themselves, and therefore one person is not responsible. It seems to work.

The one thing proponents of same sex marriage and participants of same sex marriage have not considered. The laws that govern marriage that already exist. They haven’t had time. It has been only four years since they considered married. And ignorance of the law is no excuse. For instance if same sex marriges want to have children of their own.

Well, they would be guilty of adutlry in all 50 states. And under Theocracy and under government that is legal grounds for divorce. Under Theocracy you don’t have to get a a divorce. Under government they will enforce it. The scale is already tipped when the laws were passed. That goes for any and every law past present and future. Who knows what future laws that will govern marriage.

How many people are Gay in the U.S? How many people out of that number want to get married? These and a lot of other questions have not been added to the discussion. Some questions are very sensitive and they already have moved to the United States Supreme Court to render a decision?

They want yet another legal remedy so fast the populous won’t know what hit them. They are caught up in the fury of what Gay people now say is a civil rights movement similar that what took place in the 60’s which was about racial equality.

They already have those benefits.

We all need time and more information. It will take at least a generation 40 years to know what the effect is on everybody

We would not have issues under Theocracy. We wanted government to make all our decisions. We got what we wanted. We are like sheep that has no master.