Big Girls Don't Cry

Ahm, cliche perhaps?

So here I am at the GCL of Murdoch University which is a computer lab situated next to the Murdoch library. Thus I am here prepared to study for my exam that is on Thursday, 5th June 2008 which is technically, tomorrow. My first paper is the foundation unit that all first-year students have to take (it is mandatory rather than "strongly recommended"). In retrospect, it wasn't too bad as I was told it would be; mostly deals with philosophy and psychology- two things I am pretty familiar with. Philosophy both fascinates and depresses me. I have come to see Nietzsche in a more positive light than before; after reading his theories on the will to power but I can't shake the feeling that philosophy was made for people and by people who were on the verge of killing themselves or teetering on the brink of insanity. By the way, Nietzsche did go mental on everybody- a story that unfortunately fascinates me more than his theories.

Ahem, why on earth am I talking about Nietzsche when he's not even coming out in the exam. Probably just a meager distraction from my wandering mind. Oh, how thee wanders! You know what, I have to vent about my feelings on Shakespeare. Ever since I first read him (this was way back in form 1 when I was naive and just thirteen years old) in my high school class, I adored him. We read the famous scene in Macbeth where he says that all of us are mere actors on stage, playing roles in the performance called life. I will never forget the first line:

"Tomorrow, tomorrow and tomorrow,"

It was magical, it gave me goosebumps, it made me want to cry and laugh at the same time and I longed to read more of his works. Now, eight years later, I had to do a paper on his play (Much Ado About Nothing- which is fantastic despite what I'm about to say) and I had to decide if he challenged or perpetuated gender stereotypes in this particular play. Because I am a feminist, but one who is a Shakespeare fan, I instantly dispelled the notion of him perpetuating gender stereotypes. I thought, no way! I shall remain indignant! He can't be like that! He can't be a chauvinist pig!! I refuse to see it!!

Err, yes so you see the extent of my denial. Alas, I finally had to see the light. After reading many (and I stress on the word 'many' as I foraged high and low to find something that would reassure my fears) critics on his work, both men and women, I was forced to see him in a different light. Needless to say, I was crushed, sucker-punched, sad, devastated, disgusted and angry! Once again, you get the sense of my dramatic reaction to this. He was indeed, quite a pig. He tried, I believe (because we always have that last, tiny vestige of hope inside us) to create a character that was a feminist in every sense of the word in the 16th century "man's world" but in the end, he married her off. Oh yes, that was the blow. I'm not saying that I'm against marriage or that feminists should be against marriage. I say this in that tone of voice because this particular character was fiercely against marriage and spoke out against all the butting males in her life. Oh, it was wonderful. In my bookshelf blog, I shall quote a few things from Much Ado Abour Nothing and you will see what I'm talking about.

Oh well, not to worry, I'll get over myself. Sniffle. Also, that was good practice for my literature exam on Monday which I'm really enjoying studying for!

Hee. Loves to all. Aww, thanks for coming here. :D