Homonyms, Allegiance, and Really Bad Girl Scouts

The similarities between the poetry by Lee Ann Brown and Chapter A of Christian Bok's, Eunoia, have yet to dawn on me.Therefore I will focus on Brown's poetry of "Pledge" and try to elaborate in great detail.

To begin "Pledge" by Brown is entirely satirical. In using the first letter of the original word (in most cases, there is some deviating from the original)written in the Pledge of Allegiance and trading the ending with another word it makes the passage nonsensical; almost giving off a Lewis Carol vibe. For instance, "And to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." is replaced with "And to the reproduction for which it stands, one naughtiness,under good, indivisible,with lick and juvenile for anatomy." I'm sure this is not what the forefathers had in mind when they composed the Pledge of Allegiance. Changing the words gives this pledge a completely different connotation, on that note, it seems to be in favor of pedofillia, which is illegal (and therefore almost hilariously ironic). This reminds me of a Robot Chicken sketch when there is a little girl satirizing Schoolhouse Rock and singing about homonyms, which are words that are spelled or pronounced the same, but mean different things. Word of caution: This link is not for the easily offended. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bLhL9EFMEQ Why this reminds me of the poem, if not blatantly obvious, is because of the play on words (and the slightly derogatory or risque language used) which is in each of the examples.

In the second pledge, which is a mimic of the Girl Scout pledge, I found a lot of humor. Mostly because I was kicked out of Girl Scouts in 5th grade and relish in any opportunity to make fun of the beliefs which such a corrupt troop pretended to adhere too. Although I guess that was some time ago now. I realized long ago that falsely attempting to use those guidelines in their lifestyles didn't make those girls into good people. Which I can see as a sort of underlying message in these poems. People will remember these pledges for many years, and sometimes not even realize what they really mean, and how they should model their behavior accordingly. So do these fancy sayings have any real effect on us or cause us to have any more allegiance than we would already carry? I wish I knew. For it would be easy to say, yes, that because these pledges are ingrained in my head they have caused me to be more patriotic. Although in the case of the Girl Scout pledge it actually seems to have the reverse effect. The pledge is hammered into the heads of young girls for rote memorization, and I'm not sure it was ever fully explained to us why we should actually care about what the words really mean. The same seems to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance as well, if we are not taught the meaning of what the pledge stands for then does it really do it's job of instilling patriotic behavior and allegiance to one's country? I say no.

Gulliver's Houhnhm master comments on the lifestyle of yahoos/humans.

The section I wanted to blog about is begins on page 218. This is was the particular time when Gulliver's master, hereafter referred to as Mr. Horse, told Gulliver just how he and the yahoos were indeed related.

Mr. Horse gets a lot of things right. His first few points in the similarities really seem to just be beating around the bush, but he really dives in once he begins to talk about the manner and reason which humans cover their bodies, and the way yahoos acquire food which isn't unlike our cut-throat society concerning wealth.

He says that the yahoos hate the "odiousness of their own shapes, which all could see in the rest and not in themselves (pg 219)." This exact passage reminds me of the narcissism and self-centeredness which we as humans at some point feel or experience. Mr. Horse continues on to say that this is the reason we cover our bodies with clothing, because we can't stand the sight of each other and our deformities. Which Gulliver says, "He therefore begun to think it not unwise to cover our bodies," which upon first learning of the reason for clothing Mr. Horse found against reason to cover what nature had provided. Gulliver later relates to the reader that upon his arrival in England he was unable to suffer the company of his family and was often unable to look in the mirror. Therefore he propagated the idea of being unable to sustain the company of those who he related to the yahoos.

Another point which Mr. Horse made which I found to be quite insightful was when he was speaking of the situation of greed among the yahoos. "For if you throw among five yahoos as much food as would be sufficient for fifty, they will, instead of eating peaceably, fall together by the ears, each single impatient to have all to itself (219)." This observation is completely applicable to the behavior of humans in just about everything that they do. This fact I am completely able to understand merely because at the place where I work I see it quite often. The hotel where I work often has buffets, in the restaurant, during special events, and sometimes meetings. People often scramble to be the first in line, as if they believed the food would soon run out. During these time people will often pile their plate full of food, which only a supreme glutton would be able to finish, and when their plate is still full after they have had their fill, they go back for dessert. Another instance on a much broader scale would be the constant fighting over land and riches. The gold rush in America, when everyone hurried out West because they believed they would find more riches than could sustain their lifetime. There is also the quest for land, which was often mentioned in Gulliver's conversations with the king in Brobdingnag.

Mr. Horse pin-pointed the two very key conceptions with just these illustrated points. His boundless insight lasted for 5 more pages until the end of the chapter where he again pointed out some major issues with humanity, through the personification of the yahoos.

The Finale of Gulliver's visit to Brobdingnag and Laputa

There are many interesting things that happen towards the end of Gulliver's time in Brobdingnag. The most interesting were possibly his "minor scrapes" with the wild life of the island's giant people. At one instance, he is taken captive by a most maternal monkey who forces already chewed food into his throat. The strangeness of the lack of maternal figures in this novel has struck me more than once before.

Although back in England he has a wife, we never hear more than a few words about her, or about any other affairs that Gulliver has had with women. Therefore striking out the "feminine touch/maternal notions" from the text. The fact that he finds a womanly form in an animal leads us in the direction of his views of women. Often the Brobdingnagian women are described as ugly, disgusting, and having offensive odors, not unlike our common conceptions of monkeys.

He also goes on to speak of a woman later, from Laputa, who begs the king for a pass to the metropolis, and not wanting to leave, reduces herself to the status of a beggar, pawning all her clothes just to remain. He then tells us that she was finally captured and returned to her home, where her ever-forgiving husband accepted her back with open arms, from which she proceeded to turn away from and run-off with another man.

Gulliver's stories of women cast us as animalistic, ugly whores, but does it in such a way that it seems our only folly is giving into the whimsy of our weak feminine minds. One does not hear of the Queen or Glumdalclitch's inquiries about his homeland, of the politics, music or mathematics, which both the king from Brobdingnag and Laputa ask of. There are no representations of women as sensible, rational beings in Gulliver's writings to speak of. I must therefore claim that Gulliver attempts to be discreet in his misogyny, but utterly fails.